Tag: #litigation

  • CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds IGST Refund Claim Despite Delay

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds IGST Refund Claim Despite Delay

    Date: 28.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Hyderabad, in Final Order Nos. A/30134-30135/2025 dated 24th April 2025, delivered a significant ruling favoring M/s Shabeer Enterprises concerning refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on re-exported goods.

    • M/s Shabeer Enterprises imported 18.030 metric tons of Sri Lankan Areca Nuts through Krishnapatnam Port.
    • The goods failed quality standards under the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulation, 2011, leading to a re-export order dated 30.09.2021.
    • IGST of Rs.2,82,808/- was paid on 31.03.2021.
    • The appellant filed a refund application for the IGST amount on 12.04.2022.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Gold Confiscation Orders of Customs

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Gold Confiscation Orders of Customs

    Date: 28.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Allahabad, in its Final Order Nos. 70205-70210/2025 dated 24th April 2025, allowed multiple appeals against the confiscation of nearly 4 kilograms of gold and penalties imposed by the Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Lucknow.

    • Gold weighing 3998.83 grams valued at approximately Rs. 2.12 crore was seized from two individuals traveling by bus from Gorakhpur to Delhi.
    • The seizure was made on a “reasonable belief” of smuggling under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
    • Penalties were imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 against six individuals including employees of M/s Bajrang Bullion Traders.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai uphold exemption benefits and correct classification under CTH 8415 9000

    CESTAT Chennai uphold exemption benefits and correct classification under CTH 8415 9000

    Date: 24.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench – Court No. III, has ruled in favor of M/s One Care Medical Centre, Coimbatore, quashing the reclassification of imported Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Air Conditioning Units and the denial of customs exemption benefit.

    • The appellant imported various models of Toshiba indoor and outdoor air conditioning units from M/s Toshiba Carrier (Thailand) Co. Ltd. under Bills of Entry dated 07.11.2014.
    • They classified the goods under CTH 8415 9000 and claimed benefit under Customs Notification No. 46/2011 Sl. No. 1103(1).
    • The Revenue disagreed, asserting the goods were complete air conditioning units of more than 2-ton capacity, reclassifying them under CTH 8415 8110, attracting full duty.

  • CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Seizure of Black Pepper & Green Peas

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Seizure of Black Pepper & Green Peas

    Date: 24.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench – Court No. 2, has allowed a batch of six appeals related to the alleged smuggling of black pepper and green peas from Nepal into India, holding that the Revenue failed to prove the foreign origin of the goods and that the seizures conducted at Muzaffarpur constituted “town seizures” without sufficient statutory backing.

    • Based on intelligence reports, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a truck and escort car at Hajipur, Bihar on 28.05.2019.
    • The truck was found carrying 6,718.5 kg of black pepper and 3,918 kg of peas.
    • The Revenue alleged these goods were smuggled from Nepal through Bhimnagar border and lacked legal documentation.

  • 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

    Date: 23.04.2025

    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.

    • 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.

    Handy Reader for Download:

  • 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

    Date: 23.04.2025

    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.

    • 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.

    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.