'Twaron Para Aramid Pulp' Classified As 'Textile Flock', Importers Liable For Higher Customs Duty: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Twaron Para Aramid Pulp is classified as 'textile flock', hence, the importers are liable for a higher customs duty. Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the Twaron Para Aramid Pulp imported by the assessee was classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 5601 22 00 or under CTI 5601 30 00. The case was whether the...

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Patanjali Foods' Rs 2.97 Crore Excise Duty Refund Appeal

The Supreme Court has recently issued notice in an appeal filed by Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) seeking a refund of Rs 2.97 crore charged by the tax department in connection with an excise duty dispute. A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar issued notice on both the main appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay. The appeal challenges the Karnataka High Court's judgment dated September 30, 2024, and...

Refund Claims Are Time-Barred Despite Non-Obstante Clause U/S 142(5) CGST Act: CESTAT Rejects Mahindra Holidays' Appeal

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the Non-Obstante Clause in Section 142(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) cannot override the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) stated that section 142(5) does not refer to overriding any particular provision, and hence the non obstante clause has to be examined and given a...

Supreme Court Dismisses Rs 244 Crore Service Tax Plea Against Bharti Airtel Over Employee Scheme

The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a nearly Rs 244 crore service tax appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurugram, against telecom giant Bharti Airtel Ltd. The dispute concerned the company's Airtel Employees Services Scheme (AESS), which offered free or discounted telecom services to its employees.The appeal challenged a January 27, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, which had set aside the entire tax...

Advertisement, Promotional And Management Service Payments Excluded From Customs Valuation: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Advertisement and Promotional Expenses and Management Service Fees (APE and MSF) payments are independent transactions, and cannot be included in the transaction value of imported goods. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the advertisement and promotional expenses incurred by the assessee in India are required to be added to the value of the imported goods, treating the said...

Customs | Importer Cannot Be Penalised For Misdeclaration Merely Because Other Importers Declared High Prices For Similar Goods: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that an importer cannot be penalised for misdeclaration merely because other importers declared high prices for similar goods under the Customs Valuation Rules. Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the mere fact that another importer had imported identical goods from the same overseas exporter at different prices does not prove that the assessee...

Customs | Drawback Cannot Be Denied On Grounds Of Alleged Forgery By Foreign Buyer Once Goods Are Exported: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that drawback cannot be denied on the grounds of alleged forgery by a foreign buyer after goods are exported under the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 1995. The single bench consists of (Judicial Member) opined that any forgery, if revealed during a further investigation being committed by the Russian company vis-a-vis the Landing certificate in the light of Drawback...

Customs Act | Electronic Evidence From Unsealed CPU Without Certificate U/S 139C Cannot Form Basis Of Assessment: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that electronic evidence from an unsealed CPU without any Section 139C certificate under the Customs Act cannot form the basis of assessment. Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the computer/ CPU was not sealed at the time of panchnama and was lying with the investigating agency for 47 days, after which it was first examined and then sealed,...

Customs | Confiscation, Penalty & Fine Can't Be Imposed On IGST Demand Arising From Breach Of Pre-Import Condition: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that confiscation, penalty & fine cannot be imposed on IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) demand arising from breach of pre-import condition under Customs Act. Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) opined that the IGST demand arose because of the breach of the pre-import condition. Although IGST is payable for such a breach, no confiscation or penalty can be ...

Differential Duty Paid For Provisional Release Not Pre-Deposit; Refund Interest Payable Only At 6% U/S 27A Customs Act: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the differential duty paid for provisional release is not a pre-deposit. Hence, refund interest payable only at 6% U/S 27A Customs Act, not 12% U/S 35FF Central Excise Act. Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) opined that all those goods were ordered to be released as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, at the assessee's own request for provisional release of the goods. This ...

Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Seeking Rs 93 Lakh Duty On Lulu Malls' Imported Trampolines

The Supreme Court recently (October 31) dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging the classification and valuation of imported amusement equipment, including trampolines, by Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd.A bench of Justices Pankaj Mittal and Prasanna B Varale held that there was no error in the classification of the trampolines and other equipment under the category of gymnastics equipment. The bench observed, “we do not find any infirmity in the...

Customs | AIFTA Exemption Cannot Be Denied Without Verifying Certificate Of Origin: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the AIFTA (ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement) exemption cannot be denied without verifying the certificate of origin. Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) noted that there is no allegation, let alone ascertainment, that the 'certificate of origin' corresponding to each of the impugned consignments is not authentic or not issued by the competent authority. There is...