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 Delhi Sets Aside Non-Speaking Order on Provisional Release

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Non-Speaking Order on Provisional Release

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Non-Speaking Order on Provisional Release

    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, has set aside the provisional release order issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Indore, in the case of Rudras Overseas. The case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and ensuring transparency in decision-making processes. ​

    Background

    Rudras Overseas, an importer based in Indore, filed a Bill of Entry on November 23, 2019, for a shipment of nutrition supplements. ​ Customs duty of Rs. ​ 7,53,643/- was paid, but the goods were detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for examination. ​ Concerned about the perishable nature of the goods, the appellant applied for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act on December 26, 2019. ​ During the investigation, the appellant deposited Rs. ​ 10 lakh as requested. ​

    On April 27, 2020, the Assistant Commissioner issued a communication stating that the goods could be provisionally released upon execution of a bond worth Rs. ​ 86,22,915/- and furnishing a bank guarantee/security of Rs. ​ 1,38,19,048/-. However, the appellant challenged this order, claiming it lacked reasoning and transparency.

    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 Chandigarh – No CENVAT Reversal Required on Written-Off Inventory

    CESTAT Chandigarh – No CENVAT Reversal Required on Written-Off Inventory

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.09.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh – No CENVAT Reversal Required on Written-Off Inventory​

    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), Chandigarh, recently delivered its judgment in the case of M/s Delta Energy Systems India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III. ​ This case revolved around the reversal of CENVAT credit on obsolete inventory and the invocation of the extended period of limitation by the Department. ​ The Tribunal’s decision, pronounced on 18th September 2025, provides clarity on key issues related to CENVAT credit and procedural compliance.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Delta Energy Systems India Pvt. ​ Ltd., engaged in the manufacturing of Power Rectifier Systems and UPS Systems, as well as trading in franking machines, EPABX, and modems, faced a demand from the Central Excise Department. ​ The demand arose after an audit revealed that the company had written off obsolete inventory worth β‚Ή3,51,88,130 in its financial statements for the year ending 31st March 2007. ​ The Department alleged that the company was required to reverse the CENVAT credit availed on the written-off inventory. ​

    The company contended that it had separate divisions for manufacturing and trading, with distinct records maintained for each. ​ It argued that no CENVAT credit was availed on the traded inventory, and for the manufacturing inventory, the applicable duty had already been reversed in 2005. ​ Despite this, the Department issued a show cause notice on 8th October 2010, invoking the extended period of limitation.

    Source: CESTAT Chandigarh

    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 Refund Demand

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Refund Demand

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Refund Demand

    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 justice to M/s. Puyang Refractories Group Company (India) Pvt. ​ Ltd. by setting aside the impugned order demanding a refund amount of Rs. 11,64,043/-. The case, which revolved around procedural lapses and delayed issuance of a Show Cause Notice, highlights the importance of adhering to legal timelines and ensuring proper communication in adjudication processes. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s. Puyang Refractories Group Company, was sanctioned a refund of Rs. ​ 11,64,043/- on 17.11.2014. ​ However, the Department later initiated proceedings to recover the refunded amount, alleging it was erroneously granted. ​ A Show Cause Notice was issued on 05.06.2017, nearly two and a half years after the refund was sanctioned. ​ Subsequently, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. ​

    The appellant contended that they were unaware of the proceedings as the Show Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original were not received by them. ​ It was only upon receiving a recovery letter in March 2019 that they requested a copy of the Order-in-Original, which was provided on 07.03.2019. ​ Acting promptly, the appellant filed an appeal on 22.04.2019. ​ However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, citing a delay in filing beyond the prescribed ninety-day period.

    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

  • Case Compilation on Indian Customs Law- Pro Industry cases

    Case Compilation on Indian Customs Law- Pro Industry cases

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 20.09.2025

    Case Compilation on Indian Customs Law- Pro Industry cases

    A Comprehensive compilation of Pro-Industry decided cases based upon CESTAT Tribunal, Supreme Court, and various High Court Decisions

    Prepared for Legal Professionals, Importers, Exporters, Customs Brokers, Freight Forwarders, and Industry Stakeholders.

    The document is designed with users in mind:

    – Legal Professionals and Advocates: to strengthen arguments, identify precedents, and analyze emerging jurisprudential trends.

    – Importers and Exporters: to understand compliance obligations, permissible reliefs, and potential liabilities in customs operations.

    – Customs House Agents and Freight Forwarders: to better appreciate their responsibilities, liabilities, and avenues for defense in proceedings.


    – Industry Stakeholders and Policy Analysts: to observe how judicial interpretation influences trade policy, customs procedures, and dispute resolution frameworks.


    The compilation thus stands as a practical handbook for trade compliance, litigation strategy, and informed decision-making.

    Link has been provided for Readers/Users for the source Judicial Orders, which directly opens the source PDF document.

    This Case Compilation 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.

    Sources Referred: CESTAT, Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, Madras High Court, Bombay High Court, High Court of Kerala, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    Pro Industry Customs Case CompilationDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai Upholds Scientific Classification of Levocarnitine Imports

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Scientific Classification of Levocarnitine Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 20.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Scientific Classification of Levocarnitine 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.

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has ruled in favor of M/s. ​ Symbio Generics India Private Ltd., upholding the classification of their imported products, “Levocarnitine” and “Levocarnitine L-Tartrate,” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 29239000 as “Quaternary Ammonium Salts.” ​ This decision, pronounced on September 19, 2025, sets a significant precedent in the realm of customs classification disputes.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when the Revenue challenged the classification declared by the importer, M/s. ​ Symbio Generics India Private Ltd., and sought to reclassify the products under CTH 21069099 as “food preparations not elsewhere specified or included.” ​ The Revenue’s contention was based on the assumption that the imported goods were food supplements, despite expert opinions and scientific evidence supporting the original classification. ​

    The products in question, “Levocarnitine” and “Levocarnitine L-Tartrate,” are pharmaceutical-grade compounds used as drug intermediates. ​ They are scientifically defined as “Quaternary Ammonium Salts” and have therapeutic value. ​ The Appellant argued that these products are separate chemically defined organic compounds, as per Note 1(a) of Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court – Laptops are not to be classified as a set of CPU with monitor, mouse, and keyboard

    Source: CESTAT Chennai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Time Limits for Seizure and Release of Goods Under Customs Act

    Supreme Court Clarifies Time Limits for Seizure and Release of Goods Under Customs Act

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 20.09.2025

    Supreme Court Clarifies Time Limits for Seizure and Release of Goods Under Customs Act

    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 Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Respondent (Civil Appeal No. ​ 3489 of 2024), addressing the legal implications of non-issuance of show-cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962. This ruling has far-reaching consequences for businesses dealing with seized goods and the procedural obligations of customs authorities. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized a luxury car (Maserati) owned by Respondent, a trader in imported and second-hand luxury cars. ​ The car was detained under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and later provisionally released under Section 110A. ​ However, the DRI failed to issue a show-cause notice within the stipulated time frame prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act. ​

    The respondent approached the Delhi High Court, which ruled in his favor, declaring that the failure to issue a show-cause notice within the prescribed period entitled him to the unconditional release of the seized car. ​ The Union of India challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

    Source: Supreme 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 Quashes Penalty on Broker in Diamond Trade

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Penalty on Broker in Diamond Trade

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Penalty on Broker in Diamond Trade​ ​ ​  

    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, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside the penalty imposed on Appellant, a broker in the diamond trade, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around allegations of over-invoicing and circular trading of diamonds by certain firms, with the appellant accused of being a link between the parties involved. ​ This blog delves into the details of the case, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal’s reasoning behind its decision.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant worked as a broker in the diamond trade, earning a small commission of 2 paisa per US dollar. He was accused of being involved in circular trading and over-invoicing of diamonds imported by M/s Chirayu Impex Pvt. ​ Ltd and M/s Amrapali Exim Pvt. ​ Ltd. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation against these firms, alleging that they were importing diamonds without paying customs duty and overvaluing the goods to remit excess foreign exchange overseas. ​

    The appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice, and the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. ​ 2,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. ​ 1,50,000. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Reinforces Evidentiary Standards in FERA

    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

  • Supreme Court of India Sets Aside Gauhati High Court Judgment on Time-Barred Tax Assessments​

    Supreme Court of India Sets Aside Gauhati High Court Judgment on Time-Barred Tax Assessments​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.09.2025

    Supreme Court of India Sets Aside Gauhati High Court Judgment on Time-Barred Tax Assessments​ ​

    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 Supreme Court of India has overturned a judgment by the Gauhati High Court concerning the reassessment of time-barred tax cases under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. ​ The ruling, delivered on September 11, 2025, in the case of M/S Shiv Steels vs. The State of Assam & Ors. ​, has significant implications for the interpretation of fiscal statutes and the powers of tax authorities. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute revolved around the reassessment of tax liabilities for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. ​ Initially, the assessments were declared time-barred under Section 19 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, which prescribes strict time limits for completing assessments and reassessments. ​ However, the revenue department later obtained the sanction of the Commissioner and invoked Section 21 of the Act to conduct fresh assessments within an extended limitation period. ​

    The appellant, M/S Shiv Steels, challenged the fresh assessments, arguing that they were invalid and beyond the permissible time limits. ​The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, holding that the reassessment was valid under Section 21, as the Commissioner had granted prior sanction.

    Source: Supreme 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- the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked

    CESTAT Delhi- the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked ​ ​

    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 delivered its judgment on a series of appeals involving Toyota Material Handling India Private Limited (TMHIPL), its Senior Manager, and the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi. The case revolved around the assessment of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on imported forklift parts and the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Here’s a breakdown of the case and its implications.

    The Background

    Toyota Material Handling India, a subsidiary of Toyota Industrial Corporation, Japan, imports and distributes forklifts and their parts in India. ​ Between February 2014 and March 2017, the company imported forklift parts and paid CVD based on the transaction value of the goods. However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that CVD should have been assessed on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) basis, as per the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and related rules. ​

    A show cause notice was issued in January 2019, alleging that Toyota India had evaded duty by not declaring the MRP of the imported goods. ​ The Principal Commissioner of Customs confirmed a demand of β‚Ή1.67 crore for the period up to May 13, 2015, but dropped a demand of β‚Ή3.25 crore for the period after May 14, 2015, citing amendments to the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Clarifies Requirement of Wilful Intent for Extended Limitation

    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

  • Government of India Notifies Cases to Be Heard Exclusively by Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal​

    Government of India Notifies Cases to Be Heard Exclusively by Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.09.2025

    Government of India Notifies Cases to Be Heard Exclusively by Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal​ ​ ​ Β 

    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

    On September 17, 2025, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issued a significant notification (S.O. ​ 4219(E)) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). ​ This notification outlines specific cases or classes of cases that will be heard exclusively by the Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). ​ The decision, made on the recommendations of the GST Council, aims to streamline the appellate process and ensure consistency in judgments on critical legal matters.

    Key Highlights of the Notification

    The notification, issued under the third proviso to sub-section (5) of section 109 of the CGST Act, specifies three categories of cases that will be heard solely by Principal Bench:

    1. Cases Pending Before Multiple State Benches ​ If a case is pending before two or more State Benches and the President of the GSTAT is satisfied that an identical question of law is involved, such cases will be transferred to the Principal Bench. ​ This provision ensures uniformity in legal interpretation across states and avoids conflicting judgments.
    2. Cases Involving Sections 14 or 14A of the IGST Act, 2017 ​ Any case where one or more issues are covered under section 14 or section 14A of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) will be heard by the Principal Bench. ​ These sections deal with the determination of the place of supply and special provisions for goods and services, which are critical for interstate transactions.
    3. Cases Involving Section 20 of the CGST Act, 2017 ​ Cases involving issues under section 20 of the CGST Act, which pertains to the application of provisions of the CGST Act to the Union Territories, will also be heard by the Principal Bench. ​ This ensures that matters related to Union Territories are addressed uniformly.

    Source: Ministry of Finance

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com