CUSTOM&EXCISE&SERVICE TAX
Voluntary Statements To Customs Officers Can Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, constitute substantive evidence and can sustain a conviction if shown to be voluntary. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta reaffirmed the Gujarat High Court's judgment holding that, “Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by duly authorized Customs Officers are admissible in evidence and do not attract the bar...
No Service Tax On Exempt Road, Canal Works Based Solely On TDS Deduction: CESTAT Allahabad
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 February held that mere deduction of TDS and reflection of receipts in Form 26AS cannot determine service tax liability when the underlying activity, i.e., construction of roads and canals for Government authorities, is expressly exempt under the Mega Exemption Notification. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary allowed an appeal by Shailja Construction, noting that the entire demand...
Duty-Free Import Benefits Denied Over Unauthorised Diversion, Poor Record-Keeping: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court on 10 February, held that duty-free import benefits under the Advance Authorisation Scheme can be denied when the importer diverts the goods into the domestic market without authorisation.A Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima allowed the Department's appeals, arising from a batch of civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Department) against the proprietor of Regin Agency, and Regin Exports.Setting aside the CESTAT's order,...
Supreme Court Dismisses Customs Review Plea Against IndiGo, SpiceJet In IGST Exemption Case On Reimported Aircraft Parts
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed review petitions filed by the Customs Department against its earlier judgment affirming relief granted to InterGlobe Aviation Limited, which operates IndiGo, in a dispute concerning the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on re-import of aircraft and parts sent abroad for repairs.A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan condoned the delay but declined to interfere with its earlier decision. The court held: ...
S.48 Customs Act | Exporter Cannot Stop Customs Action On Return Shipment By Disowning It: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently held that an exporter cannot block the entry or processing of a return shipment merely by disowning the consignment, and that once the importer/exporter refuses to clear the goods, the statutory consequences under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 must follow.For context, Section 48 provides the procedure to be followed where the goods are not cleared, warehoused, or transshipped within thirty days from the date of unloading. In the case at hand, the...
Supreme Court Issues Notice In Challenge To CESTAT Ruling That Customs Cannot Alter FOB Value Of Goods
The Supreme Court recently issued notice on an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) against a ruling of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, which held that Customs officers cannot alter the Free on Board (FOB) value agreed upon between a buyer and seller. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed that the matter be heard along with a connected appeal. The tribunal had framed the issue succinctly:...
Customs Act | Once SCN States Market Value Of Seized Goods, Burden Lies On Noticee To Disprove It: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently held that once the market value of goods seized by the Customs is specified in a show cause notice, the burden lies on the one who recieved notice to disprove the valuation with cogent material, and a mere denial is insufficient to seek interference in appellate proceedings.A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was hearing an importer's appeal challenging concurrent findings of the Customs adjudicating authority and CESTAT,...
CESTAT Sets Aside Penalty On Customs Broker, Says CHALR Violation Alone Insufficient
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a penalty imposed on a Customs Broker under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, holding that mere violation of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) cannot by itself justify penalty under the Act in the absence of specific allegations and material showing knowledge. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Cargo...
CESTAT Chennai Holds Software Part Of Hardware Value, Reduces Duty Demand On Wipro
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the value of software supplied along with imported networking equipment by Wipro (Infotech Group) is includible in the assessable value of the hardware for the purpose of levying customs duty.The Bench, comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, partly allowed the appeal by restricting the demand to the normal period of limitation, while setting aside the...
DEEC Licence Must Be Valid On Date Of Warehouse Clearance To Claim Customs Exemption: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has recently reiterated that in the case of warehoused goods, customs duty liability arises on the date of actual clearance from the warehouse, and an importer cannot claim exemption under a DEEC advance licence if the licence has expired by then.Upholding the High Court's decision, a bench of Justices Manmohan and Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that entitlement to exemption must subsist on the date duty is assessed. “From the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the...
Supreme Court Upholds Delhi High Court Ruling On Duty Drawback For Unlocked Mobile Phones
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Customs, thereby letting stand a Delhi High Court ruling that unlocking or activating mobile phones prior to export does not disentitle exporters from claiming duty drawback. By an order dated January 30, 2026, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment, observing that it found “no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High...