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: #Legal

  • CESTAT Delhi Allows BCD and IGST Exemption on HIV Detection Kits

    CESTAT Delhi Allows BCD and IGST Exemption on HIV Detection Kits

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Allows BCD and IGST Exemption on HIV Detection Kits

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set a precedent by granting exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and reduced Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) rates to advanced HIV diagnostic kits imported by M/s Hemogenomics Pvt. ​ Ltd. This decision underscores the importance of technological advancements in healthcare and their alignment with public interest objectives. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s Hemogenomics Pvt. ​ Ltd., engaged in importing and supplying diagnostic kits, filed an appeal against the rejection of exemption benefits for their imported Procleix Ultrio Plus Assay Kits and Procleix Ultrio Elite Assay Kits. These kits, based on Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) technology, are used for detecting HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C viruses in blood specimens. The dispute arose when the Customs Department classified these kits under CTI 3822 00 90 and denied exemption benefits, arguing that the kits were not diagnostic kits for detecting HIV antibodies as specified in the exemption notifications.

    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 Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Quashes Bond Enforcement Against Bank of Nova Scotia

    CESTAT Delhi Quashes Bond Enforcement Against Bank of Nova Scotia

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Quashes Bond Enforcement Against Bank of Nova Scotia ​ ​​ ​

    In a significant ruling by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the Bank of Nova Scotia successfully challenged the enforcement of bonds executed for recovery of duty, interest, and penalty against two exporters, Nikkamal Jewellers and Krishan Chander Ramesh Chander (P) Ltd. ​ The decision, pronounced on August 5, 2025, sets a precedent for cases involving the obligations of nominated agencies under customs notifications.

    Background

    The Bank of Nova Scotia, a multinational financial service provider, operates as a nominated agency for importing bullion under the “Export Against Supply by Nominated Agencies” scheme. ​ This scheme, governed by Notification No. ​ 57/2000-Cus dated May 8, 2000, allowed duty-free import of gold, provided it was exported as jewellery within 120 days. ​ However, the second proviso of this notification, which mandated this obligation, was omitted by Notification No. ​ 33/2015-Cus dated May 15, 2015. ​

    The case arose when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted gold jewellery allegedly being smuggled by exporters linked to the Bank of Nova Scotia. A show cause notice was issued to various parties, including the exporters, but the Bank of Nova Scotia was not explicitly called upon to respond.

    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 Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chandigarh- No Misdeclaration or Undervaluation in Holi Balloon Imports

    CESTAT Chandigarh- No Misdeclaration or Undervaluation in Holi Balloon Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.08.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh- No Misdeclaration or Undervaluation in Holi Balloon Imports

    In a pivotal decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, dismissed an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, against M/s Goyal Brothers. The case revolved around the classification and valuation of imported goods, including balloons used during Holi and trolley bags. ​ This ruling not only clarifies the interpretation of Customs Tariff Headings but also reinforces the importance of adhering to valuation rules and principles of natural justice. ​

    Case Overview

    M/s Goyal Brothers imported balloons and trolley bags, declaring their classification under Customs Tariff Headings (CTH) 9505 9090 and 4202 1220, respectively. ​ While the quantities declared in one Bill of Entry matched the actual goods, discrepancies were noted in another Bill of Entry. The Customs Department reclassified the balloons under CTH 9503 0020 (toys), imposed penalties, and re-determined the value of the goods. ​ However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, leading to the Revenue’s appeal before the Tribunal.

    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 Chandigarh

    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 Sets Aside Time-Barred Duty Demand

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Time-Barred Duty Demand

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Time-Barred Duty Demand ​ ​​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside a duty demand of Rs. 16,54,073/- along with interest imposed on JSW Steel Ltd by the Commissioner of Customs, Panaji, Goa. ​ The case revolved around the legality of a corrigendum issued years after the original Show Cause Notice (SCN), raising questions about the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. ​ This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and procedural accuracy in customs adjudication. ​

    Background of the Case

    JSW Steel Ltd had exported Hot Rolled Non-Alloy Steel Coils and Cold Rolled Close Annealed Non-Alloy Wide Coils between April 10, 2008, and May 9, 2008. ​ A notification issued on May 10, 2008, amended the duty rates for these goods to 15% and 10%, respectively, which were previously exempt from duty. ​ While most shipping bills were cleared before the notification date, five shipping bills were cleared on May 10, 2008, leading to a demand for additional duty. ​

    The original SCN was issued on October 3, 2008, but lacked reference to the specific provision of the Customs Act under which the demand was raised. A corrigendum was issued on April 11, 2013, invoking Section 28 of the Customs Act and substantially altering the content of the original notice, including changes to the description and quantity of goods.

    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 Chennai- MRP Rules Not Applicable to Industrial Imports

    CESTAT Chennai- MRP Rules Not Applicable to Industrial Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai- MRP Rules Not Applicable to Industrial Imports

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside the duty demand imposed on M/s. ​ BEML Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking, by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III. The case revolved around the assessment of imported spares/components and the applicability of MRP/RSP-based duty under the Customs Tariff Act. ​ The Tribunal’s decision highlights critical aspects of legal interpretation, consumer protection laws, and the extended period of limitation under customs law. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appeal arose from an Order-in-Original dated 27.02.2015, wherein the Commissioner of Customs demanded differential duty on imported spares/components, alleging that these were pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sales without affixed MRP/RSP labels. ​ The period under dispute was April 2010 to November 2011, and the demand was based on the extended period of limitation, citing suppression of facts.

    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 Chennai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Reinforced the rights of importers to seek amendments and claim refunds under the Customs Act

    CESTAT Delhi Reinforced the rights of importers to seek amendments and claim refunds under the Customs Act

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Reinforced the rights of importers to seek amendments and claim refunds under the Customs Act ​ ​​

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Trust Marketing vs. Commissioner of Customs. This decision, pronounced on July 28, 2025, has far-reaching implications for importers and the interpretation of key provisions under the Customs Act, 1962. Let’s delve into the details of this case and its impact on customs law.

    Background of the Case

    Trust Marketing, an importer and distributor of mobile phones, filed 180 Bills of Entry between February 2014 and October 2014, paying Additional Duty of Customs at a higher rate of 6%. ​ However, under Notification No. ​ 12/2012-CE dated March 17, 2012, the applicable duty was only 1%, provided Condition No. ​ 16 was satisfied. ​ This condition required that no credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 be availed for inputs or capital goods used in manufacturing the goods. ​

    Trust Marketing later sought to amend these Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, to claim the lower duty rate and subsequently file for a refund under Section 27. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the request, citing finality of assessment and procedural limitations. ​ However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, allowing the amendments, which led to the department filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

    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 Delhi

    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 Clarifies Scope of Section 117 Customs Act in Export Documentation

    CESTAT Mumbai Clarifies Scope of Section 117 Customs Act in Export Documentation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Clarifies Scope of Section 117 Customs Act in Export Documentation ​  

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside a penalty of β‚Ή2,00,000/- imposed on M/s Ajanta Pharma Ltd. under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around alleged mis-declaration in Airway Bills for 43 consignments of pharmaceutical products exported between September 2018 and March 2021. ​ This decision highlights the importance of adhering to legal provisions and ensuring due process in penalty imposition. ​

    Background of the Case

    Ajanta Pharma Ltd., a prominent pharmaceutical exporter, faced allegations of mis-declaration in Airway Bills, where the goods were described as “medical apparatus” instead of their actual descriptionβ€”Erectile Dysfunction Medicines such as Kamagra Oral Jelly, Super Kamagra Tablets, and Kamagra Gold Tablets. ​ While the shipping bills, invoices, and packing lists contained accurate descriptions, the discrepancy in Airway Bills led the Customs Department to impose a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The penalty was challenged by Ajanta Pharma Ltd., arguing that the alleged contravention pertained to provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, not the Customs Act. ​ The company contended that no violation of the Customs Act was established, making the penalty unsustainable.

    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 Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Betel Nut Origin Dispute

    CESTAT Kolkata Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Betel Nut Origin Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Betel Nut Origin Dispute ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, dismissed appeals filed by the Revenue in a case involving alleged fraudulent import of betel nuts. ​ The case, which revolved around mis-declaration of the country of origin and undervaluation of goods, highlights the complexities of international trade and customs regulations. ​ Here’s a detailed look at the case and the tribunal’s decision.

    Background of the Case

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, initiated investigations based on specific intelligence, appellant was involved in fraudulent imports of betel nuts under the Import-Export Code (IEC) of M/s S. Krishna & Co. ​ The betel nuts, allegedly of Indonesian origin, were routed through Bangladesh to evade customs duties by misusing the SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA) benefits under Notification No. ​ 105/1999.

    The investigation revealed that Bangladesh-based firms were re-exporting betel nuts without any processing, falsely claiming them as products of Bangladesh. ​ Additionally, the goods were grossly undervalued, with actual values ranging from USD 1400 to USD 1750 PMT, while declared values were between USD 300 and USD 450 PMT. ​ Evidence, including email correspondences and statements, pointed to a network involving Indian importers, Bangladeshi firms, and an Indonesian broker.

    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 Chennai Confirms Track Assemblies as Car Seat Parts

    CESTAT Chennai Confirms Track Assemblies as Car Seat Parts

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Confirms Track Assemblies as Car Seat Parts ​

    In a significant ruling by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, the case of M/s. ​ Daebu Automotive Seat India Pvt. ​ Ltd. has brought clarity to the complex issue of customs classification and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. This blog delves into the key aspects of the judgment, highlighting its implications for importers, manufacturers, and the broader legal framework governing customs disputes.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Daebu Automotive Seat India Pvt. ​ Ltd. (DAS) imported essential parts of “Track Assembly” used in car seats, claiming classification under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9401 9000 as “parts of car seats.” ​ The company availed a preferential duty exemption under Notification No. ​ 152/2009-Cus. However, the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged misclassification, arguing that the goods were “accessories of motor vehicles” under CTH 8708 9900, subject to a higher duty rate. ​ The dispute also involved allegations of tampering with the Certificate of Origin (COO) and the imposition of penalties under various sections of the Customs Act.

    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 Chennai

    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- Refund of Encashed Bank Guarantee Not Subject to Limitation Under Section 27

    CESTAT Mumbai- Refund of Encashed Bank Guarantee Not Subject to Limitation Under Section 27

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai- Refund of Encashed Bank Guarantee Not Subject to Limitation Under Section 27 ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set a precedent in the case of Oswal Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import). The Tribunal addressed the critical issue of whether a bank guarantee encashed by the Revenue during the pendency of an appeal can be treated as “payment of duty” under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision has far-reaching implications for businesses dealing with customs disputes and provisional releases.

    Background of the Case

    Oswal Industries Limited had imported goods in 2003, which were provisionally released against a bond and a bank guarantee of Rs. ​ 10 lakhs. ​ A dispute arose, leading to a demand for customs duty, which was confirmed by the Order-in-Original in 2006. ​ During the pendency of Oswal’s appeal before the Tribunal, the Revenue encashed the bank guarantee and deposited the amount in the government treasury. ​

    In 2016, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Oswal Industries, setting aside the demand for customs duty. Subsequently, Oswal filed an application for a refund of the encashed bank guarantee. ​ However, the refund application was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and later by the Commissioner (Appeals), citing the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

    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