Tag: #LegalOpinion

  • CESTAT Kolkata ruled that confiscation and penalty were unjustified when ownership was already relinquished and misdeclaration wasn’t proven

    CESTAT Kolkata ruled that confiscation and penalty were unjustified when ownership was already relinquished and misdeclaration wasn’t proven

    Date: 06.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench delivered a significant ruling in favour of multiple importers, including Appellants, Kritika Impex, Kushagra Shipping Agency, Ganpati Roadways, and Bhawani Cargo Movers, who were accused of misdeclaration of goods and liable for penalties and duty demand.

    • Date of Bill of Entry: 11 September 2021 (No. 5405619) and earlier on 31 August 2021 (No. 5257900)
    • The importers had filed Bills of Entry based on shipping documents received from the foreign seller.
    • Upon learning on 18 September 2021 that the container had been wrongly loaded, the importers promptly notified Customs and declared relinquishment of goods under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962.
    • A 100% examination revealed the presence of white pepper and white wood powder.
    • Despite relinquishing rights and disclosing the issue, the authorities issued Show Cause Notices alleging misdeclaration, invoking penalties and seeking confiscation.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Mumbai Orders Interest on Refund of Seized Traveller’s Cheques

    CESTAT Mumbai Orders Interest on Refund of Seized Traveller’s Cheques

    Date: 25.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench ruled in favor of M/s Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., directing the Customs Department to pay interest on the refund of β‚Ή47.86 lakhs, which was encashed from 106 traveller’s cheques seized back in 2006.

    • On 19.10.2006, Customs officials at CSI Airport, Mumbai seized 106 traveller’s cheques from a passenger.
    • The cheques, amounting to USD $1,07,642 (equivalent to β‚Ή47,86,334), were deposited in the State Bank of India.
    • After prolonged litigation, redemption fine and penalties totaling β‚Ή10.01 lakhs were deducted.
    • The remaining β‚Ή41.85 lakhs was refunded, but no interest was paid on the retained amount.
    • The company sought interest on the refunded amount and alternatively, foreign exchange rate-adjusted compensation.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Aluminium Composite Circles Under CTH 7606

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Aluminium Composite Circles Under CTH 7606

    Date: 19.4.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, in Final Order No. 40976/2024 dated 26 July 2024, upheld the classification of aluminium composite circles under CTH 7606, dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai against M/s Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd.

    • Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances imported goods declared as “Aluminium Circles and Induction Base”.
    • The revenue reclassified the items as “Other articles of aluminium” under CTH 7616, demanding differential duty of β‚Ή16.13 lakhs.
    • The department argued that the goods were not simple aluminium circles but were embossed with stainless steel, making them composite items with a specific use.

    Handy Reader for Download:

  • CESTAT New Delhi Reinforces that interest in delayed IGST payments must be computed using CGST framework provisions, not the customs law

    CESTAT New Delhi Reinforces that interest in delayed IGST payments must be computed using CGST framework provisions, not the customs law

    Date: 18.4.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s JLC Electromet Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur. ​ This decision sheds light on the nuanced distinction between Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Additional Duty of Customs, as well as the applicability of interest on delayed IGST payments. ​ Let’s dive into the details of this case and its implications.

    The appellant, M/s JLC Electromet Pvt. ​ Ltd., imported goods under 13 Advance Authorizations, availing exemptions from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and IGST. ​ However, the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) found that the exemption from IGST was incorrectly claimed, as the appellant did not fulfill the “actual user” condition required under the scheme. ​ Upon being notified, the appellant paid the IGST along with interest.

    The dispute arose over the interest payment. ​ The appellant argued that IGST, being an Additional Duty of Customs, should not attract interest under the provisions of the Customs Act, citing precedents from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. ​ The Commissioner of Customs, however, appropriated the interest paid by the appellant, leading to this appeal.

  • BIS on Captive Consumption

    BIS on Captive Consumption

    BIS on Captive Consumption

    Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is tasked with formulating the Safety & quality standards related to Products and Services in India. The BIS Act, 2016 or any such similar acts are a part of the larger Consumer Protection Laws.

    We have not delved into every part of every prevailing law but have tried to maximize on various aspects of the prevailing laws by being very precise and brief. Any omission may be treated as inadvertently left out or being out of context or any other reason as maybe.

    The intent of the Legislation in enacting the BIS Act, 2016 is very clear as it reads as follow-

    An Act to provide for the establishment of a national standards body for the harmonious development of the activities of standardization, conformity assessment and quality assurance of goods, articles, processes, systems and services and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.