ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 02.09.2025
CESTAT Kolkata said that the extended limitation period was not invokableβ 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.
In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside the demand for differential duty, redemption fine, and penalty against M/s. β Thales India Private Limited. β The case revolved around the classification of imported goods and the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the Customs Act, 1962. β This decision highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the implications of procedural lapses in customs adjudication. β
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when Thales India imported “Digital Axle Counter,” a safety and traffic control equipment for railways, under Customs Tariff Entry No. β 8608 0030, attracting IGST at 5%. β However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) later contended that the correct classification was under Customs Tariff Entry No. β 8530 1010, which attracts IGST at 28%. β This reclassification led to a demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. β 84,75,878/-, along with a redemption fine of Rs. β 85,00,000/- and a penalty equivalent to the duty payable. β
Source: CESTAT Kolkata
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379