ALS

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

Tag: #litigation

  • CESTAT Ahmedabad Held that value cannot be re-determined on weight when units price were declared and invoiced

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Held that value cannot be re-determined on weight when units price were declared and invoiced

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.04.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Held that value cannot be re-determined on weight when units price were declared and invoiced

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad – Court No. 3, has allowed two appeals filed by ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd., setting aside penalties and redemption fine imposed by customs authorities on the grounds of alleged misdeclaration of weight in multiple Bills of Entry.

    Case Overview:

    • The case pertained to import of engineering components including:
      • Carbon Steel Forged Hemi (ASME SA266 GR2)
      • Proof Machined Low Alloy Steel Spool
      • Test Plates
    • Customs claimed excess weight in three shipments totaling over 13.37 MTS more than declared.
    • Alleged misdeclaration valued at approx. β‚Ή31.45 lakhs with total differential duty of approx. β‚Ή9.48 lakhs.

    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 Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai No provision under Customs Act, 1962 empowers officers to collect interest in the absence of duty

    CESTAT Mumbai No provision under Customs Act, 1962 empowers officers to collect interest in the absence of duty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.04.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai No provision under Customs Act, 1962 empowers officers to collect interest in the absence of duty

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench has allowed the appeal of M/s Lotus Herbals Color Cosmetics, ordering the refund of β‚Ή1,02,818, which was collected as interest without legal authority during EPCG import clearance.

    Case Overview:

    • The appellant imported a filling machine and parts under Bill of Entry No. 7362042 dated 27.03.2020 at JNPT, Nhava Sheva.
    • At the time of filing, they did not possess an EPCG authorisation, which was later issued on 03.06.2020.
    • Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the EPCG licence was submitted after some delay.
    • Customs officers allegedly verbally demanded payment of interest for the intervening period.
    • The appellant paid β‚Ή1,02,818 as interest vide challan dated 25.06.2020, and the goods were cleared at nil customs duty under Notification No. 16/2015-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 Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • 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

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.4.2025

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

    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.

    Background of the Case

    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.

    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 New Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Reader for Download:

    ALO Document 18.04.2025Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com