𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐎)

Tag: #litigation

CESTAT Kolkata Overturns License Revocation

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 27.09.2025

CESTAT Kolkata Overturns License Revocation

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), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has delivered justice to M/s. Auro Logistix, a Customs Broker (CB), by setting aside the revocation of their license, forfeiture of pre-deposit, and imposition of penalties. This decision, pronounced on September 26, 2025, marks a significant moment for Customs Brokers across the country, reinforcing the importance of due process and fair adjudication.

Background of the Case

The appeals filed by M/s. Auro Logistix stemmed from two separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata. These orders alleged violations of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018, and accused the CB of failing to perform due diligence in facilitating export consignments for two exporters—M/s. K.S. Impex and M/s. Ankraj Developers Pvt. Ltd. The allegations primarily revolved around overvaluation of export goods, misuse of GST input tax credit (ITC), and procedural lapses.

The Commissioner had revoked the CB license, forfeited the security deposit, and imposed penalties of Rs. 50,000 in each case. However, M/s. Auro Logistix challenged these orders, asserting that they had complied with all regulations and were not responsible for the alleged violations committed by the exporters.

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

September 27, 2025
CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty on Dry Dates

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 26.09.2025

CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty on Dry Dates

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), Allahabad, has ruled in favor of M/s Nitin Trading Company, Lucknow, in a case involving the alleged illegal import of 2100 kg of Dry Dates. The Tribunal has set aside the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962, bringing relief to the appellant.

Background of the Case 

The case originated from a search conducted by Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate, Lucknow, at the premises of M/s Chandra Cold Storage on November 18, 2019. During the search, 42 bags of Dry Dates weighing 2100 kg were found and detained under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were suspected to be of foreign origin and allegedly imported illegally, leading to their seizure and subsequent issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposing confiscation and penalties.

The Order-in-Original dated November 18, 2021, confirmed the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed penalties on multiple parties, including M/s Nitin Trading Company. The appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the original order. Dissatisfied, M/s Nitin Trading Company approached the Tribunal.

Source: CESTAT Allahabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

September 26, 2025
CESTAT Chennai Upholds Interest on Delayed SAD Refunds

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 26.09.2025

CESTAT Chennai Upholds Interest on Delayed SAD Refunds

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), Chennai, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Commissionerate-IV, against M/s HLG Trading. This decision reinforces the entitlement of importers to interest on delayed refunds under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, even in cases governed by exemption notifications like Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when M/s HLG Trading sought refunds of additional duty of customs under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, along with interest for the delay in processing the refunds. While the refund amounts were sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds), the claim for interest was rejected, citing that the refund scheme under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was not governed by Section 27 or Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Aggrieved by this rejection, M/s HLG Trading approached the Commissioner (Appeals), who ruled in their favor, directing the lower adjudicating authority to calculate and sanction interest. The Department, dissatisfied with this decision, escalated the matter to CESTAT Chennai.

Source: CESTAT Chennai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

September 26, 2025
CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Redeployed Project Imports

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 26.09.2025

CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Redeployed Project Imports

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, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a significant judgment in a series of appeals concerning the classification and treatment of goods imported under the “Project Imports” category. This decision, pronounced on September 19, 2025, sheds light on the complexities surrounding the Customs Act, 1962, and the Project Imports Regulations, 1986, while addressing the rights and obligations of importers and customs authorities.

Background of the Case

The appeals were filed by M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd, M/s Aravali Power Company Pvt Ltd, and individuals associated with these entities. The dispute revolved around the import of five piling rigs valued at ₹10,98,98,857 for the Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project in Jhajjar, a mega power project. The applicable customs duty of ₹3,27,47,724 was exempted under a notification, as the goods were classified under heading 9801 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which pertains to “Project Imports.”

After completing the project, the rigs were redeployed to another mega power project. Customs authorities initiated proceedings, alleging that the exemption was specific to the original project and that the transfer breached conditions outlined in a circular. Consequently, they demanded recovery of the exempted duty, imposed penalties, and confiscated the rigs, allowing redemption upon payment of ₹2,00,00,000.

Source: CESTAT Mumbai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

September 26, 2025
Karnataka High Court- Customs Duty Not Leviable on Import of Capital Goods by 100% EOU

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 25.09.2025

Karnataka High Court- Customs Duty Not Leviable on Import of Capital Goods by 100% EOU

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.

On July 30, 2025, the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru delivered a significant judgment in the customs appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax, Mysore, against M/s Such Silk International Ltd. The appeals, CSTA No. 8 of 2018 and CSTA No. 1 of 2021, were dismissed by a bench. This judgment has far-reaching implications for the interpretation of customs duty obligations under the Export Oriented Unit (EOU) scheme.

Background of the Case

M/s Such Silk International Ltd., a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), had imported duty-free capital goods and raw materials under the erstwhile Notification No. 53/1997-Customs dated June 3, 1997. The company was obligated to fulfill export obligations as per the scheme. However, the unit became defunct, and the export obligations were not met. The Revenue initiated proceedings under Sections 28 and 72 of the Customs Act, 1962, to recover the customs duty on the imported goods, alleging non-compliance with the conditions of the notification.

The respondent accepted the duty liability on unutilized raw materials and consumables but contested the levy of duty on capital goods. The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that duty on capital goods was not leviable if the goods were installed and used for manufacturing, even if the export obligation was not fulfilled. The Revenue challenged this decision before the High Court.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

September 25, 2025
CESTAT Delhi- Drawback Cannot Be Denied on Exported Goods

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 25.09.2025

CESTAT Delhi- Drawback Cannot Be Denied on Exported 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 judgment, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered its final order on September 23, 2025, in the case of M/s Simran Exports vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export). The decision, which has far-reaching implications for exporters and customs authorities, addressed key issues related to the recovery of duty drawback, confiscation of exported goods, and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.

Background of the Case

M/s Simran Exports, an exporter of garments, had declared an FOB value of ₹1,06,84,417 for their consignments and claimed duty drawback accordingly. However, the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the goods were over-invoiced to claim ineligible drawbacks. Following investigations, the Additional Commissioner of Customs passed an Order-in-Original (OIO) in 2017, confiscating the goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act, ordering recovery of the drawback, and imposing penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order in 2019, prompting M/s Simran Exports to approach CESTAT.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

September 25, 2025
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Gold Smuggling

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 25.09.2025

CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Gold Smuggling

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 set aside penalties imposed on three appellants in a case involving alleged smuggling of gold bars. The decision, pronounced on September 17, 2025, highlights critical legal principles surrounding the burden of proof, reasonable belief, and the applicability of penalties under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Background of the Case

The case originated from the seizure of 40 gold bars weighing 6638.450 grams and valued at Rs. 2,18,40,500/- from a truck intercepted near CRPF Camp, Guwahati, on March 7, 2019. The gold was concealed in a cavity under the driver’s seat, and the truck occupants, along with three appellants, were involved in the alleged smuggling operation. The appellants were accused of being involved in the transshipment of the gold, based primarily on their statements and those of co-accused individuals.

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

September 25, 2025
CESTAT Ahmedabad Sets Aside IGST Demand and Penalties

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 24.09.2025

CESTAT Ahmedabad Sets Aside IGST Demand and Penalties

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 & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has delivered justice to AMNS Ports Hazira Ltd. (formerly Essar Bulk Terminal Pvt. Ltd.) and its employee, Appellant, by setting aside the IGST demand of ₹12.12 crore and associated penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. This ruling marks a significant victory for the appellants, who were embroiled in a dispute over the import of capital goods under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme.

Background of the Case

AMNS Ports Hazira Ltd., a provider of port services, imported capital goods such as Ship Unloader, Barge, and Railmount under EPCG Authorization No. 5230026626 dated January 21, 2019. The company availed exemptions from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and IGST under Customs Notification No. 16/2015-Cus, as amended by Notification No. 79/2017-Cus. The authorization required the company to fulfill an export obligation equivalent to six times the duty saved within six years, i.e., by January 20, 2025.

The dispute arose when the Revenue alleged that the company had availed IGST exemption despite receiving payments in rupee terms for services rendered, which, as per the amended notification, disqualified them from claiming the exemption. The Commissioner of Customs imposed a demand for IGST, confiscated the imported goods, and levied penalties on both the company and its employee.

Source: CESTAT Ahmedabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

September 24, 2025
CESTAT Mumbai Ruled that the charges against Appellant were baseless

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 24.09.2025

CESTAT Mumbai Ruled that the charges against Appellant were baseless

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), Mumbai, dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import-II), Mumbai, against Appellant. The Tribunal upheld the original adjudication order, which had cleared the respondent of any contravention under the Customs Act, 1962. This decision not only reinforces the principles of judicial discipline but also highlights the importance of adhering to due process in customs-related disputes.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the import of coal by M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd and M/s Rosa Power Supply Co Ltd. The notice alleged undervaluation of goods and sought penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act. Appellant, a director of Century Exports Ltd, was named as an incidental noticee, despite having no direct involvement in the processing of the imported goods.

The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, had earlier dropped the proceedings against the principal noticees and auxiliary parties, including Appellant, citing a lack of evidence. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Import-II) appealed this decision before the Tribunal, seeking penalties against the respondent.

Source: CESTAT Mumbai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

September 24, 2025
CESTAT Delhi Rejected DRI’s Reclassification and Extended Limitation

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 24.09.2025

CESTAT Delhi Rejected DRI’s Reclassification and Extended Limitation

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 & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has ruled in favor of M/s Videocon D2H Limited (now Dish TV India Limited) in a long-standing dispute over the classification of imported smart cards. The case, which revolved around the classification of “smart cards” used in set-top boxes, has significant implications for importers and the interpretation of customs laws.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that Videocon had misclassified imported “smart cards” under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8523 52 90, which pertains to smart cards, to avail duty exemptions. The DRI contended that the cards were not “smart cards” but parts of set-top boxes, classifiable under CTI 8529 90 90, and thus not eligible for the claimed exemptions. The DRI issued a show cause notice (SCN) demanding a duty of ₹56.47 crore, along with penalties and interest, and sought to confiscate the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Videocon, along with its executives, challenged the DRI’s findings, asserting that the imported cards met the definition of “smart cards” under Chapter Note 5(b) of Chapter 85 of the Customs Tariff and were correctly classified.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com

September 24, 2025