ALO Partners Logo

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #IndirectTaxMatters

  • CESTAT Kolkata- Higher Customs Duty Held Unenforceable Due to Delay in Notification Publication

    CESTAT Kolkata- Higher Customs Duty Held Unenforceable Due to Delay in Notification Publication

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.05.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata- Higher Customs Duty Held Unenforceable Due to Delay in Notification Publication

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, ruled in favour of M/s Emami Agrotech Ltd. by setting aside the demand for differential customs duty on imported crude palm oil. The case involved a dispute over the applicable date for a notification that raised Basic Customs Duty (BCD) from 15% to 30%.

    Case Background:

    • Emami imported crude palm oil in November 2017 via four Bills of Entry dated 16.11.2017.
    • Entry inward for the consignments was granted on 18.11.2017 and 19.11.2017.
    • Notification No. 87/2017-Customs dated 17.11.2017, which increased BCD to 30%, was only published in the Official Gazette on 20.11.2017.
    • Customs demanded higher duty based on the entry inward date.
    • Emami paid the higher duty under protest and later appealed the assessment.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Bangalore- Customs directed to restore the full sale value of the auctioned goods

    CESTAT Bangalore- Customs directed to restore the full sale value of the auctioned goods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.05.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- Customs directed to restore the full sale value of the auctioned goods

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench, in its Final Order No. 20530/2025 dated 30 April 2025, has ruled in favour of M/s. Wipro Ltd., allowing restitution of value for imported goods that were auctioned by the Revenue despite the matter being sub judice.

    Case Background:

    • Appellant: M/s. Wipro Ltd., Bangalore
    • Goods: Service application module imported from Cisco Systems, Mexico
    • Declared Value: USD 26,400
    • Revenue’s Enhancement: Value re-determined to USD 1,10,000 based on list price of similar goods
    • Penalty Imposed: Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 112(a) of Customs Act
    • Redemption Fine: Rs. 50,000 under Section 125
    • Goods Status: Auctioned in 2013 while appeal was pending

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Quashes Detention of Gold Kada

    Delhi High Court Quashes Detention of Gold Kada

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.05.2025

    Delhi High Court Quashes Detention of Gold Kada

    The Delhi High Court in Daljeet Singh v. Commissioner of Customs [W.P.(C) 5040/2025], quashed the detention of a 22-carat gold kada worn by the petitioner, ruling that it qualifies as a personal effect under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and cannot be confiscated without due process.

    Case Background:

    • Petitioner: Daljeet Singh, a Sikh tourist arriving from Dubai on 29 November 2024.
    • Item Detained: 22-carat gold kada (60 grams) worn by the petitioner.
    • Customs Action: Detained the kada at IGI Airport, New Delhi under Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/29-11-2024/005522.

    Legal Issues Raised:

    1. Whether the gold kada qualifies as a personal effect under Baggage Rules, 2016.
    2. Whether a pre-printed waiver form signed by the petitioner can legally substitute a show cause notice (SCN) and personal hearing under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Constitution Bench Rules: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases, Invokes Article 142 for Complete Justice

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Rules: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases, Invokes Article 142 for Complete Justice

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.05.2025

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Rules: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases, Invokes Article 142 for Complete Justice

    In a landmark Constitution Bench judgment delivered on 30 April 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (2025 INSC 605) addressed two pivotal legal concerns that had long vexed India’s arbitration ecosystem:

    1. Whether courts have the power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and
    2. Whether the power under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked to grant complete justice in arbitration-related disputes.

    The Constitution Bench decisively ruled that courts do possess limited power to modify arbitral awards. Furthermore, the Court held that in appropriate cases, Article 142 can be invoked to modify awards where doing so avoids unnecessary remand and protracted arbitration.

    Context: The Precedent Conflict

    Earlier rulings, such as Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021), had suggested that courts could only set aside or remand awardsβ€”not modify themβ€”under Section 34. This created an enforcement challenge where minor or severable defects in arbitral awards required the parties to re-commence lengthy arbitration proceedings.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Constitution Bench Affirms Limited Court Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act based on Severability Doctrine

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Affirms Limited Court Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act based on Severability Doctrine

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.05.2025

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Affirms Limited Court Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act based on Severability Doctrine

    In a landmark Constitution Bench judgment dated 30 April 2025 (Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., 2025 INSC 605), the Supreme Court of India has decisively held that Indian courts possess a limited power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

    Key Takeaways from the Judgment:

    1. Recognition of Limited Modification Power

    The court affirmed that while Section 34 does not explicitly provide for modification, courts can:

    • Modify an award if the invalid portion is severable from the valid portion.
    • Correct clerical, typographical, or computational errors.
    • Adjust post-award interest, as prescribed under Section 31(7)(b).
    • Exercise modification under Article 142 of the Constitution in rare cases to do complete justice.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Partially Relieves Appellants in Cigarette Smuggling Case: Penalty Under Section 112(a) Quashed, Retained Under Section 112(b)

    CESTAT Mumbai Partially Relieves Appellants in Cigarette Smuggling Case: Penalty Under Section 112(a) Quashed, Retained Under Section 112(b)

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.05.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Partially Relieves Appellants in Cigarette Smuggling Case: Penalty Under Section 112(a) Quashed, Retained Under Section 112(b)

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench, delivered a nuanced verdict in Customs Appeal Nos. 87171 and 87172 of 2019 involving allegations of illegal import and distribution of foreign-origin cigarettes in violation of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COPTA), 2003.

    Background:

    • The Air Intelligence Unit (AIU), CSI Airport Customs, intercepted a consignment containing 3 lakh cigarette sticks branded as β€œNew Light Cigarettes WIN” valued at β‚Ή15 lakhs.
    • The consignment, imported from Myanmar via the North-East, did not comply with packaging norms under COPTA and lacked valid import documents.
    • Investigation revealed a network involving multiple individuals, including Appellant (owner of M/s Megha Collection) and his employee Appellant, who were implicated in receiving and further distributing such consignments.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Allows Exemption on Imported Crude Rice Bran Oil

    CESTAT Kolkata Allows Exemption on Imported Crude Rice Bran Oil

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.05.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Allows Exemption on Imported Crude Rice Bran Oil

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, set aside a massive β‚Ή70 crore customs duty demand raised against M/s Kalyani Solvent Pvt. Ltd. for importing crude rice bran oil. The tribunal held that the company was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (as amended), even though the acid content of the imported oil exceeded 20%.

    Background:

    M/s Kalyani Solvent Pvt. Ltd., a leading edible oil processor supplying to brands like Patanjali, had imported 104 consignments of crude rice bran oil between October 2010 and February 2012 under CTH 1515 9091, claiming duty exemption. Customs authorities later issued a Show Cause Notice in 2013 alleging the imports were ineligible for exemption due to high acid content, seeking recovery of β‚Ή70 crore.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Bangalore- Quick Lime Imports by JSW Steel Classifiable Under Chapter 25

    CESTAT Bangalore- Quick Lime Imports by JSW Steel Classifiable Under Chapter 25

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.05.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- Quick Lime Imports by JSW Steel Classifiable Under Chapter 25

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, allowed the appeal of M/s JSW Steel Limited, Salem, quashing the differential customs duty demand of over Rs. 75 lakh and ruling that “Quick Lime” is correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2522 10 00.

    Case Background:

    • JSW Steel imported “Quick Lime Powder” under 8 Bills of Entry between September and November 2015.
    • The goods were initially assessed provisionally under CTH 2522 1000, with standard duty payments.
    • Based on test results indicating 92.2% purity of calcium oxide, Revenue reclassified the product under CTH 2825 9090 (for pure calcium oxide) and raised a demand of Rs. 75,99,475 plus interest.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Rules in Favor of La Opala RG Ltd. on SHIS Duty Benefit Dispute

    CESTAT Kolkata Rules in Favor of La Opala RG Ltd. on SHIS Duty Benefit Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.04.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Rules in Favor of La Opala RG Ltd. on SHIS Duty Benefit Dispute

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, ruled in favor of M/s. La Opala RG Ltd., quashing a duty demand of nearly Rs. 58 lakh raised by Customs for imports made under the Status Holder Incentive Scrip (SHIS) scheme.

    Background:

    M/s. La Opala RG Ltd., a prominent glassware manufacturer, imported key manufacturing inputs such as Crucible Pots, Pot Rings, Abrasive Belts, PVA Wheels, Bevelling Cones, and Refractories between December 2012 and February 2015. These imports were made under 12 SHIS scrips via 14 Bills of Entry.

    Subsequently, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that:

    • The imported items were not capital goods or directly related to previously imported capital goods.
    • SHIS scrips were misused to debit duty beyond the permissible 10% of the total scrip value.

    The adjudicating authority confirmed a customs duty demand of Rs. 57,94,958 with interest and equal penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata emphasized that minor administrative errors without dishonest intent should not result in penal consequences

    CESTAT Kolkata emphasized that minor administrative errors without dishonest intent should not result in penal consequences

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.04.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata emphasized that minor administrative errors without dishonest intent should not result in penal consequences

    The Eastern Zonal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, delivered an important ruling on 17th April 2025, dismissing an appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s. Nalini Bandhu Ray & Sons, a licensed Customs Broker.

    Case Background:

    • M/s. Nalini Bandhu Ray & Sons filed a Bill of Entry for the importer M/s Lalwani Ferro Alloys based on instructions and documentation provided by their client.
    • Later, it emerged that the consignee name had been changed by the overseas supplier to M/s QVC International Pvt. Ltd., but this change was not communicated to the Customs Broker.
    • The Revenue alleged a violation of Regulation 10(e) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 for failing to exercise due diligence.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.comΒ or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com