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: #LegalOpinion

  • CESTAT Ahmedabad Allows Exemption on Flexi Tanks

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Allows Exemption on Flexi Tanks

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.06.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Allows Exemption on Flexi Tanks

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench has allowed the appeals filed by Goodrich Maritime Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, Venkatraman Thyagarajan, against the denial of exemption under Notification No. 104/94-Cus dated 16.03.1994 on imported Flexi Tank Containers.

    The core issue revolved around whether Flexi Tank Containers, which are typically used once for transporting liquid cargo and then exported, qualify as “durable containers” to claim customs duty exemption.

    Background of the Case

    • The Department denied exemption benefits to Goodrich Maritime, asserting that Flexi Tank Containers are not durable since they are used only once and not repeatedly.
    • Additional objections were raised regarding:
      • Whether the importer themselves must re-export the containers.
      • Whether drawback claims by exporters using the containers affect eligibility.

    The Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, rejected the exemption and imposed a penalty on the Managing Director under Section 112 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 Ahmedabad

    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 Clarifies Finished Leather Export Criteria

    CESTAT Chennai Clarifies Finished Leather Export Criteria

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Clarifies Finished Leather Export Criteria

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, allowed the appeal of M/s Nabisha Leathers and set aside the imposition of export duty, penalty, and fine imposed for alleged export of β€œunfinished leather.” The case revolved around a nuanced interpretation of DGFT’s Public Notice on finished leather norms and marks a vital precedent on how such technical regulations should be interpreted.

    Background of the Case

    • Nabisha Leathers filed a shipping bill in March 2010 to export 37 cartons of β€œGoat Shoe Suede Upper Leather.”
    • A leather expert from Customs flagged 13 cartons of grey-coloured leather, suspecting non-compliance with DGFT Public Notice No. 21/2009-14.
    • A sample was sent to the Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI), which reported non-compliance citing “absence of snuffing” on the grain as the reason.
    • Based on the CLRI report, Customs:
      • Confiscated the consignment under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
      • Levied 60% export duty on the consignment.
      • Imposed a penalty of β‚Ή10,000.
      • Allowed redemption on fine of β‚Ή50,000.

    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 Upholds 12% IGST on Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Mobile Phone Manufacturing

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds 12% IGST on Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Mobile Phone Manufacturing

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds 12% IGST on Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Mobile Phone Manufacturing

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Principal Bench, delivered a comprehensive judgment on 23rd June 2025 in Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, resolving a long-standing dispute over the correct IGST rate applicable on lithium-ion batteries imported for use in the manufacture of mobile phones.

    Key Issue

    The central issue before the Tribunal was whether lithium-ion batteries imported by Samsung India and other mobile manufacturers for use in the manufacture of mobile phones are to be taxed at:

    • 12% IGST under Serial No. 203 of Schedule II (as claimed by Samsung India),
      or
    • 28% or 18% IGST under Serial No. 139 of Schedule IV and 376AA of Schedule III, respectively (as claimed by the Department).

    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 Bangalore- Personal Penalty on Co-noticees Cannot Be Recovered from Refund Sanctioned to Appellant

    CESTAT Bangalore- Personal Penalty on Co-noticees Cannot Be Recovered from Refund Sanctioned to Appellant

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.06.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- Personal Penalty on Co-noticees Cannot Be Recovered from Refund Sanctioned to Appellant

    Background: Currency Seizure and Penalties

    Appellant, while traveling from Bangalore airport, was found carrying undeclared foreign currency worth β‚Ή29.37 lakhs. The currencies included:

    • US$ 100 notes (300 Nos.),
    • Euro 100 (24 Nos.), Euro 50 (163 Nos.),
    • Saudi Riyals 500 (22 Nos.).

    On investigation, it was alleged that these currencies were handed over to him by two individuals – and were being smuggled in violation of the Customs Act, 1962, and FEMA, 1999.

    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 Mumbai: Undervaluation Allegations Dismissed Over Invalid Electronic Evidence

    CESTAT Mumbai: Undervaluation Allegations Dismissed Over Invalid Electronic Evidence

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai: Undervaluation Allegations Dismissed Over Invalid Electronic Evidence

    Background of the Case

    M/s Winsor Enterprises, a Mumbai-based importer of bags and PVC leather cloth, along with its partners, were subjected to an intense investigation by the DRI Surat Unit. The DRI alleged that the appellants had undervalued imported goods from China with the intent to evade customs duty. Based on electronic communications and printouts seized during a search operation in 2017, the Customs Department issued a Show Cause Notice proposing:

    • Reassessment of customs duty under Section 28(4),
    • Confiscation of goods under Section 111,
    • Penalties under Sections 112(a), 114A, and 114AA.

    The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and imposed total penalties exceeding β‚Ή9 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 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 Upholds ITC Limited’s Stand Under CTH 2522

    CESTAT Kolkata Upholds ITC Limited’s Stand Under CTH 2522

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.06.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Upholds ITC Limited’s Stand Under CTH 2522

    Case Background

    M/s ITC Limited, Paperboards & Speciality Papers Division, had imported Quicklime (PCC Lime 0/20MM) for use as a Pulp Conversion Chemical. The company classified the imports under CTH 2522 10 00 (Quicklime), which attracts a concessional rate of duty as a mineral product.

    However, the Customs assessing officer reclassified the goods under CTH 2825 90 90 (Inorganic chemicals – Others) on the basis of laboratory tests, triggering higher customs duties. Orders confirming this classification were passed under Section 17(4) and 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 and subsequently upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

    ITC challenged the reclassification and the matter reached CESTAT Kolkata, involving multiple appeals from 2019 to 2025.

    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 Sets Aside Penalties in β‚Ή5.82 Crore Firecracker Seizure

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in β‚Ή5.82 Crore Firecracker Seizure

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.06.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in β‚Ή5.82 Crore Firecracker Seizure

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has set aside all penalties imposed on six individuals alleged to be involved in the illegal storage and smuggling of firecrackers purportedly of Chinese origin, valued at β‚Ή5.82 crores.

    The case revolved around a town seizure made by the DRI from a godown in Dankuni, West Bengal, where firecrackers were allegedly smuggled and stored in violation of Customs and Explosives laws. However, the Tribunal found multiple procedural lapses and lack of evidence, leading to full relief for the appellants.

    Background

    • Date of Seizure: 07–08 August 2021
    • Location: Godown No.1-D, Vidya Complex-1, Dankuni, West Bengal
    • Goods Seized: Firecrackers stored in over 2500 gunny sacks, allegedly of Chinese origin
    • Valuation: β‚Ή5,82,12,560/-
    • Penalties Imposed:
      • β‚Ή10,00,000 – (Alleged Mastermind)
      • β‚Ή5,00,000 – (Company Representative)
      • β‚Ή5,00,000 – (IEC Provider)
      • β‚Ή50,000 each – (Driver, Godown Owner, Misc.)

    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 Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai Rejected Customs Valuation and MIP Allegations

    CESTAT Chennai Rejected Customs Valuation and MIP Allegations

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Rejected Customs Valuation and MIP Allegations

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a total penalty of β‚Ή60 crores imposed on M/s. Sindhu Lakshmi Impex, its partners, and an associate entity, M/s. BNM Global Ventures, in a high-profile case concerning the import of black pepper from Sri Lanka. The tribunal quashed the Commissioner of Customs’ Order-in-Original dated 20.11.2020, which had imposed penalties and declared the imports as β€œprohibited” under customs law.

    Background of the Case

    • Imports in Dispute: 10,79,000 Kgs of Black Pepper imported under various Bills of Entry.
    • Allegations: The Department alleged overvaluation of imports from a related party in Sri Lanka (Lakshmi Export and Import), intended to circumvent the Minimum Import Price (MIP) of β‚Ή500/kg imposed by DGFT Notification No. 21/2015–20 dated 25.07.2018.
    • Key Charges: Improper imports, misdeclaration of value, and violation of Sections 111(m), 111(o), 112, and 114AA 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 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 Upheld Third-Party Invoicing Under ISFTA

    CESTAT Mumbai Upheld Third-Party Invoicing Under ISFTA

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 20.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Upheld Third-Party Invoicing Under ISFTA

    Background of the Case

    Ansell India Protective Products Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai, imported Latex Rubber Surgical Gloves from Sri Lanka under the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) and claimed concessional duty under Notification No. 26/2000-Customs read with Notification No. 19/2000-Customs (N.T.), supported by a valid Certificate of Origin (COO).

    However, the Department denied the benefit, objecting to the β€œthird-country invoicing” arrangement, as the commercial invoice was issued by Ansell Global Center (Malaysia), although the goods originated from Sri Lanka.

    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 Chandigarh Upholds CENVAT Credit on Endorsed Bills of Entry

    CESTAT Chandigarh Upholds CENVAT Credit on Endorsed Bills of Entry

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 20.06.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh Upholds CENVAT Credit on Endorsed Bills of Entry

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose from CENVAT credit claimed by Hero Cycles Ltd. on imported e-bikes and parts brought in by Hero Exports under FMC and DFCE Scrips. These goods were:

    • Imported in CKD condition,
    • Endorsed on the Bill of Entry to Hero Cycles, and
    • Sent directly to their factory for job work and assembly.

    The department rejected the CENVAT credit on the grounds that:

    • Endorsed Bill of Entry is not a valid document under Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and
    • Hero Cycles was not listed as a supporting manufacturer in the respective export licenses under Notification No. 53/2003-Cus. and 90/2006-Cus.

    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 Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com