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: #TaxLitigations

  • CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Redeployed Project Imports

    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 β‚Ή10,98,98,857 for the Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project in Jhajjar, a mega power project. ​ The applicable customs duty of β‚Ή3,27,47,724 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 β‚Ή2,00,00,000.

    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

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

    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 DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi- Drawback Cannot Be Denied on Exported Goods

    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 β‚Ή1,06,84,417 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 DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Gold Smuggling

    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 DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Ahmedabad Sets Aside IGST Demand and Penalties

    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 β‚Ή12.12 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 DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Ruled that the charges against Appellant were baseless

    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 DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Rejected DRI’s Reclassification and Extended Limitation

    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 β‚Ή56.47 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 DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Orders Provisional Release of Seized Goods in Customs Dispute

    Delhi High Court Orders Provisional Release of Seized Goods in Customs Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.09.2025

    Delhi High Court Orders Provisional Release of Seized Goods in Customs 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 judgment delivered on August 13, 2025, the Delhi High Court addressed the contentious issue of seizure and provisional release of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The case involved M/s Nageswara Trade, which had filed two writ petitions challenging the seizure of its imported multi-functional devices and photocopier machines. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when the Customs Department seized goods imported by M/s Nageswara Trade under Bill of Entry No. ​ 5518018 dated September 10, 2024. ​ The seizure memo, issued on January 2, 2025, cited non-compliance with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) registration and restrictions under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). The petitioner argued that the seizure was arbitrary, as the memo did not specify the violation, and sought provisional release of the goods.

    Source: Delhi 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 Kolkata Overturns Rs. 1.5 Crore Penalty on Freight Forwarder

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Rs. 1.5 Crore Penalty on Freight Forwarder

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Rs. 1.5 Crore Penalty on Freight Forwarder ​ ​

    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), Kolkata, has set aside penalties totaling Rs. ​ 1.5 crore imposed on Appellant, a freight forwarder, under Sections 112(a)(i), 112(b)(i), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This judgment not only provides relief to Appellant but also sets a precedent for freight forwarders and other peripheral service providers in the logistics industry.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around allegations of mis-declaration of imported goods in three consignments. ​ Appellant, the Director of M/s. ​ NAF Logistics Private Limited (NLPL), was accused of acting as both the overseas supplier and the freight forwarder, thereby allegedly assisting in the mis-declaration. ​ The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata, imposed penalties of Rs. ​ 50,00,000/- each under Sections 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, totaling Rs. ​ 1.5 crore.

    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

  • CESTAT Delhi clarified the Correct classification of IC-Codecs

    CESTAT Delhi clarified the Correct classification of IC-Codecs

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi clarified the Correct classification of IC-Codecs

    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 by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. emerged victorious in a long-standing dispute over the classification of imported goods. The case revolved around whether the imported “IC-Codecs” should be classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8542 39 00, as claimed by Samsung, or under CTI 8517 62 90, as determined by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. ​ The decision, pronounced on July 22, 2024, has far-reaching implications for importers and the electronics industry.

    Background of the Case

    Samsung India Electronics Pvt. ​ Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of mobile phones and tablets, imports “IC-Codecs” for use in its production processes. ​ These goods are electronic integrated circuits that function as compressors/decompressors when mounted on a Printed Circuit Board (PCB). Samsung classified these goods under CTI 8542 39 00, which covers “Other Electronic Integrated Circuits,” and availed a concessional duty rate under a notification dated March 1, 2005. ​

    However, during an audit, the Customs Department argued that the goods should be classified under CTI 8517 62 90 as “Other Communication Apparatus,” attracting higher customs duty and Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). ​ This led to a demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. ​ 1.89 crore, along with interest.

    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