ALO Partners Logo

𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐎)

Tag: #litigation

  • CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies MRP-Based Assessment for Industrial Goods

    CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies MRP-Based Assessment for Industrial Goods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.10.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies MRP-Based Assessment for Industrial Goods

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has set aside the demand for differential customs duty of Rs. ​ 2.72 crore against M/s. ​ BEML Ltd., a leading manufacturer of industrial equipment. ​ The case, which revolved around the applicability of MRP-based assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, highlights the nuanced interpretation of legal provisions governing industrial and retail sales. ​

    Background of the Case

    BEML Ltd., engaged in manufacturing heavy industrial equipment such as dumpers, motor graders, and Tatra trucks, imports spare parts and components for these products. ​ These imports are distributed to industrial consumers either directly or through their marketing network. ​ The dispute arose when the Customs Department alleged that BEML failed to discharge the applicable duty under Section 4A, which mandates MRP-based assessment for retail packages. ​ A demand notice was issued for the recovery of Rs. ​ 2.72 crore for the period April 2010 to November 2011, along with interest and penalties.

    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 Delhi- Optical Network Cards Classified as Parts

    CESTAT Delhi- Optical Network Cards Classified as Parts

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.10.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Optical Network Cards Classified as Parts

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

    Introduction

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, bringing relief to M/s Fiberhome India Private Limited. The case revolved around the classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1965, and the denial of exemption benefits. ​ This decision not only clarifies the classification of certain telecom equipment but also sets a precedent for similar disputes in the future. ​

    Background of the Case

    Fiberhome India, a manufacturer of Optical Transport Network (OTN) equipment, had imported various cards, modules, and routers used as parts of OTN systems. The company classified these goods under Customs Tariff Items (CTI) 8517 70 10 and 8517 70 90, claiming them as parts of OTN equipment. ​ However, the Principal Commissioner reclassified these goods under CTI 8517 62 90, treating them as independent apparatus/machines, thereby denying exemption benefits and imposing higher customs duties. ​ The dispute involved 133 Bills of Entry assessed at IGI Airport, Delhi, and ICD Tughlakabad, and raised critical questions about the classification of goods as parts versus independent apparatus.

    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 Hyderabad- Carbon & Sulphur Analyzer Not Classifiable as Gas Analysis Apparatus

    CESTAT Hyderabad- Carbon & Sulphur Analyzer Not Classifiable as Gas Analysis Apparatus

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.09.2025

    CESTAT Hyderabad- Carbon & Sulphur Analyzer Not Classifiable as Gas Analysis Apparatus

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Regional Bench at Hyderabad has resolved a long-standing classification dispute concerning the import of the ‘Carbon and Sulphur Analyzer CS-800’ by Verder Scientific Pvt Ltd. The case revolved around whether the apparatus should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 90271000 as a ‘Gas or Smoke Analysis Apparatus’ or under a different heading. ​ The Tribunal’s decision has set a precedent for similar classification disputes in the future.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, Verder Scientific Pvt Ltd, challenged the classification of their imported analyzer under CTH 90271000, as upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). ​ The apparatus in question is used to determine the presence of carbon and sulphur elements in solid metal samples. ​ The Commissioner (Appeals) had classified the product as a ‘Gas or Smoke Analysis Apparatus,’ arguing that the apparatus analyzes gases released during the combustion of metal samples.

    Source: CESTAT Hyderabad

    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 set aside the revised assessable value

    CESTAT Mumbai set aside the revised assessable value

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai set aside the revised assessable value

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

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside the revision of assessable value in the case of Nilkamal Limited. This judgment, delivered on September 29, 2025, highlights critical issues surrounding the valuation of imported goods under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The case revolved around the rejection of declared values for imported wooden furniture and sofa sets from Malaysia and China, and the subsequent reassessment by customs authorities. ​

    Background of the Case

    Nilkamal Limited imported consignments of wooden furniture and sofa sets from Malaysia and China between September and November 2012. ​ The customs authorities rejected the declared transaction values, citing lack of comparability with contemporaneous imports. ​ They revised the assessable value using a “price factor” based on the weight of the furniture, which was derived from the unit quantity code (UQC) specified in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. This reassessment was challenged by Nilkamal Limited, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.

    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 Delhi Ruled on Customs Valuation of Imported Software

    CESTAT Delhi Ruled on Customs Valuation of Imported Software

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Ruled on Customs Valuation of Imported Software

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

    In a significant judgment, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has delivered a landmark decision in favor of HCL Technologies Ltd. and SAP India Pvt. Ltd., setting aside penalties and customs duty demands imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), New Delhi. This case, which revolved around the valuation of imported software CDs and the inclusion of license fees in their transaction value, has far-reaching implications for the IT and software industry. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when HCL Technologies imported CDs containing SAP software from SAP Germany, facilitated by SAP India. ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the declared transaction value of the CDs was understated and sought to include the license fees paid by HCL to SAP India in the valuation of the CDs under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. ​ Penalties were also imposed on both HCL and SAP India under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    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 clarified the distinction between stock transfers and inter-State sales

    CESTAT Delhi clarified the distinction between stock transfers and inter-State sales

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi clarified the distinction between stock transfers and inter-State sales

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

    The Central Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal recently delivered a significant judgment in favor of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) regarding the classification of transactions as stock transfers versus inter-State sales. ​ This decision, pronounced on September 26, 2025, has far-reaching implications for businesses operating across multiple states in India, particularly those in manufacturing and distribution.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute revolved around the movement of goods from SAIL’s Rourkela Steel Plant in Odisha to its branches in other states during the assessment years 1989-1990, 1991-1992, 1992-1993, and 1993-1994. ​ The Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal had earlier classified these transactions as inter-State sales under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, thereby subjecting them to central sales tax. ​ SAIL contended that these were mere stock transfers to its branches, not sales, and therefore not liable for CST. ​

    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 Kolkata Sets Aside Customs Duty Demands and Penalties in Plywood Undervaluation Dispute

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Customs Duty Demands and Penalties in Plywood Undervaluation Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Customs Duty Demands and Penalties in Plywood Undervaluation Dispute

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has delivered a judgment that provides relief to several plywood importers accused of undervaluation and misclassification of imported goods. The case involved M/s. ​ Vivek Ply & Veneers Pvt. ​ Ltd., M/s. Ellena Impex OPC Pvt. ​ Ltd., M/s. Sun Ply Pvt. ​ Ltd., and M/s. Radheysham Co., who challenged the findings of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. ​ The Tribunal’s decision has set a precedent for the admissibility of evidence and the procedural requirements in customs valuation disputes.

    Background of the Case

    The appellants were accused of undervaluing imported plywood from China, leading to alleged evasion of customs duties. ​ The investigation by the DRI relied heavily on 19 proforma invoices recovered from the mobile phone of Director of M/s. ​ Vivek Ply & Veneers Pvt. ​ Ltd. These invoices were used to claim that the appellants had misdeclared the value and description of their imports. ​ The Principal Commissioner of Customs confirmed differential duty demands, imposed penalties, and ordered confiscation of goods.

    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

  • Madras High Court Grants Provisional Release of Imported Goods

    Madras High Court Grants Provisional Release of Imported Goods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.09.2025

    Madras High Court Grants Provisional Release of Imported Goods

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

    The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by Honourable Justice, has delivered a significant order in the case of M/s. ​ Genuine Spices vs. ​ The Commissioner of Customs & Others. ​ The case revolved around the import of goods classified as roasted areca nuts, which were detained by customs authorities on grounds of alleged misdeclaration. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Genuine Spices, represented by its proprietor, had imported goods under Bill of Entry No. ​ 4225311 dated June 28, 2024. ​ The customs authorities refused to clear the goods, claiming that they did not fall under the classification of roasted areca nuts. ​ The petitioner, however, maintained that the goods were indeed roasted areca nuts and challenged the show cause notice issued by the respondents. ​ The petitioner also highlighted the perishable nature of the goods and sought relief from the court to prevent their disposal by customs authorities.

    Source: Madras 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

  • CESTAT Delhi- Mushroom Cultivation Equipment Classified as Agricultural Machinery

    CESTAT Delhi- Mushroom Cultivation Equipment Classified as Agricultural Machinery

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Mushroom Cultivation Equipment Classified as Agricultural Machinery

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently addressed a dispute concerning the classification of imported goods used in mushroom cultivation. ​ The case revolved around whether the imported aluminium shelving, floor drain, and automatic watering system for mushroom growing should be classified under a tariff heading for agricultural machinery or as generic aluminium structures. ​ This decision has far-reaching implications for agricultural businesses and importers of specialized equipment.

    The Case Overview

    The appellant, M/s. Welkin Foods, imported aluminium shelving, floor drains, and automatic watering systems specifically designed for mushroom cultivation. ​ They classified these goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 84369900, which pertains to agricultural machinery, claiming a ‘nil rate of duty.’ However, the Customs Department argued that the shelving should be classified under CTH 76109010, which covers generic aluminium structures and attracts higher duties. ​

    The department alleged misclassification, resulting in a shortfall of Rs. ​ 21,01,983 in duty payments. ​ The appellant contested this claim, leading to a legal battle that culminated in the Tribunal’s decision.

    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 Ahmedabad Upholds SAD Refund Claim of Importer

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Upholds SAD Refund Claim of Importer

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.09.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Upholds SAD Refund Claim of Importer

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

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Sanjay Furniture Palace vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. ​ This decision, pronounced on September 23, 2025, has clarified the applicability of Notification No. ​ 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007, which grants exemption from Special Additional Duty (SAD) on goods imported for subsequent sale. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellants, Sanjay Furniture Palace and its authorized signatory, had filed refund claims under Notification No. ​ 102/2007-Cus for the 4% SAD paid on imported timber. ​ The refund claims were initially sanctioned but later investigated by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), which alleged that the appellants had submitted forged invoices and failed to correlate the sales invoices with the Bills of Entry. ​ The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund claims, citing discrepancies in the documentation and alleged fabrication of invoices.

    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