Top Stories Case Digest on Rulings Related to Customs Duty Exemptions At their core, customs duty exemptions balance the interests of the government, businesses, and consumers by reducing costs for critical industries while maintaining revenue goals By Eeva Mary Sanil – On January 27, 2025 5:48 pm – 15 mins read Customs duty exemptions are a cornerstone of trade policy. They aim to foster economic growth by reducing or waiving import taxes on specific goods. These exemptions are strategically designed to encourage the importing of essential raw materials, promote industrial development, and boost exports. The Customs Act 1962 governs them. They are implemented through detailed government notifications that specify eligibility criteria, conditions, and procedures. At their core, customs duty exemptions balance the interests of the government, businesses, and consumers by reducing costs for critical industries while maintaining revenue goals. They often align with India’s commitments under international agreements, such as WTO treaties and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
However, their application can be complex, requiring strict compliance with prescribed conditions. Disputes over their interpretation frequently arise, making them a central point at the intersection of trade, taxation, and law. These exemptions serve as economic incentives and legal instruments, reflecting their significance in shaping India’s trade landscape. Section 25 of the Customs Act 1962, includes the powers to grant exemption from duty: 25. Power to Grant Exemption from Duty. – (1) If the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt generally either absolutely or subject to such conditions (to be fulfilled before or after clearance) as may be specified in the notification goods of any specified description from the whole or any part of duty of customs leviable thereon. (2) If the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by special order in each case, exempt from payment of duty, for reasons to be stated in such order, any goods, of strategic or secret nature, or for charitable purpose, on which duty is leviable . (3) An exemption under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) in respect of any goods from any part of the duty of customs leviable thereon (the duty of customs leviable thereon being hereinafter referred to as the statutory duty) may be granted by providing for the levy of a duty on such goods at a rate expressed in a form or method different from the form or method in which the statutory duty is leviable and any exemption granted in relation to any goods in the manner provided in this sub-section shall have effect subject to the condition that the duty of customs chargeable on such goods shall in no case exceed the statutory duty.
Tripura HC allows benefit of exemption notification as Basic Duty of Excise was exempt on Final Product but other Duties were applicable Union of India vs Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. CITATION: 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 421 The Tripura High Court allowed the benefit of exemption notification as essential duty of excise was exempt on the final product but other duties such as National Calamity Contingent duty and Education Cess were applicable. The assessee, M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. claimed CENVAT credit on the inputs utilized for manufacture of the final product. The adjudicating authority, however, was of the opinion that since the final product was exempt from payment of due date, the assessee could not have availed a CENVAT credit paid on the inputs utilized in such final product. No Customs Duty can be demanded on Containers used for Packing of Inputs on which Credit has been taken: CESTAT Sundaram Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, CGST & Central Excise CITATION: 2021 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 293 The Customs, Excises, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench ruled that no Customs Duty can be demanded on containers used to pack inputs on which credit has been taken. The Appellant, M/s.Sundaram Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. manufactures PP woven fabrics and also receives a few services, such as Goods Transport Agency Service, Manpower Recruitment Agency Services Legal Consultancy Service, etc.
They also benefited Cenvat Credit on inputs, input services, and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Exemption of Excise Duty can’t be denied for mere taking Credit of Duty paid on Inputs used in Manufacture of Goods: CESTAT grants relief to Hamdard Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs The Commissioner,Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax CITATION: 2021 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 147 In a major relief to M/s Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories, the Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that exExcise, andof Excise Duty can’t be denied for mere taking credit, of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of goods. The appellant manuforctures edible preparations falling under Chapter 21, Unani medicines falling under Chapter 30 and Cosmetics and Toilet preparations falling under Chapter 33 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 19854. Some of these goods are dutiable and others are exempted from duty. Duty remission u/s 23 applicable only on Imported Goods, Claim of Refund not sustainable: CESTAT The Andhra Sugars Limited vs Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 482 The single-member bench of the Hyderabad Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the duty remission under section is applicable only on imported goods and since the appellants are not proven as imported goods lost or destroyed the claim of refund is not sustainable.
The appellant, M/s. Andhra Sugars Ltd challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 25.7.2018 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby he upheld the lower authority’s order rejecting the appellant’s refund claims. Relief to Lenovo: CESTAT allows benefit of Exemption from Additional Duties of Customs to Hard Disk drives Lenovo India Pvt Ltd vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 628 While granting relief to Lenovo, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the benefit of exemption from additional duties of customs to hard disk drives. M/s Lenovo India Pvt Ltd, the petitioner challenged the intent of customs authorities to deny them the benefit of exemption from additional duties of customs beyond 6%, accorded to ‘hard disk drives’ in notification no. 6/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 and notification no. 12/2012-CE dated 18th March 2012, by the adoption of tariff item 8471 7030 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on import of ‘external/portable hard disk drive’ of several makes and models. Exemption for CVD on Imported Goods under Excise Notification after Amendment is allowable only on Satisfaction of both Conditions: CESTAT Soir International, Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs, CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 332 While considering a bunch of appeals, the Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that exemption for Countervailing duty (CVD) on imported goods under excise notification after an amendment is allowable only on satisfaction of both conditions.
The appellants imported goods and self-assessed duty under section 17(1) and filed Bills of Entry which were re-assessed by the proper officers under section 17 (4) enhancing the duty. The appellants appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who, by the impugned orders, in each of the cases, partially allowed the appeals but denied the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 as amended by Notification No. 34/2015-CE dated 17.7.2015 on the additional duty of Customs. No recovery by Customs authorities when amount claimed is not Duty: CESTAT confirms Customs Duty Exemption Principal Commissioner of Customs vs M/s Telecare Network (India) Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 348 The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), confirmed the customs duty exemption and reiterated that there can be no recovery by Customs authorities when amount claimed is not duty. The Revenue preferred the appeal to assail the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), whereby the refund to the respondent, M/s Telecare Network (India) Pvt Ltd, was sanctioned. The respondent is a Private Limited Company which imports and sells mobile phones in India. Relief to Jindal Saw: CESTAT Deletes Customs Duty Levy Valued on Filing of Ex-Bond BOE Jindal Saw Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 383 As a relief to Jindal Saw, the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has deleted the customs duty levy valued on the filing of the ex-bond Bill of Entry. M/s. Jindal Saw Ltd., the appellant challenged the demand for customs duty. The appellant pointed out that they had warehoused the goods under Section 46 of Customs Act and later cleared the same from the warehouse for domestic consumption on payment of duty under Section 68 of the Customs Act. The Department demanded the duty on value by applying the exchange rate of the date on which the ex-bond bill of entry was filed.
No Denial of CVD Exemption under Excise Notification based on Impossible Condition: CESTAT Commissioner of Customs (Exports) vs Mr. Kailash Kumar Kishorpuria CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 417 In a recent case, the Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)has held that exemption of Countervailing Duties (CVD) under excise notification cannot be denied when practically not possible to satisfy the prescribed condition. The respondent, Mr Kailash Kumar Kishorpuria had imported silk fabrics vide 2 Bills of Entry and claimed the benefit of CVD @ 8% under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. The original authority vide orders of assessment dated 24.02.2010 and 25.02.2010 denied the benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE on the imported goods. No Evidence showing Mismatch of Imported Goods and Description as per Excise Exemption Notification, No Duty Demand u/s 28 of Customs Act: CESTAT Creative Newtech Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 422 The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that duty is not demandable under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 in absence of evidence showing a mismatch of imported goods and description as per Excise exemption notification. The appellants challenged the adoption of the rate of duty corresponding to tariff item 8525 8090 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, with consequent denial of notification no. 12/2012-Cus dated 17th March 2012 and notification no 50/2017-Cus dated 30th June 2017.
Diversion of Imported/Indigenous Goods procured Customs Duty Free: CESTAT confirms Customs Duty Demand Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana vs Punjab Exports CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 470 The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), confirmed the customs duty demand in the matter of diversion of imported/indigenous goods procured customs duty free. M/s Punjab Exports, the appellant was licensed to operate as a 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU) for the manufacture of Fabrics and Garments; they were importing raw material i.e. polyester yarn, polyester fabrics, woollenyarn, synthetic waste, acrylic fibre and acrylic tow and availing exemption under Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 03.06.1997 and was also procuring the goods from indigenous sources. Aircraft not used for Private purpose in Breach of Undertaking: CESTAT allows Duty Exemption under Customs Duty Exemption Notification Vrl Logistics Ltd vs C.C. CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 485 The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that allowed the duty exemption under customs duty exemption notification since the aircraft was not used for private purposes in breach of undertaking. Vrl Logistics Ltd, the appellant challenged the respective impugned orders which confirm the differential Customs duty and impose penalties on all the appellants on the ground that the main appellants herein had improperly availed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 61/2007-Cus. Exemption under Customs Notification allowable when the Export Obligation was Fulfilled: Madras HC sets aside Demand of Custom Duty M/s.Xomox Sanmar Ltd vs The Director General of Foreign Trade CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 954 In a recent case, the Madras High Court (HC) held that the exemption under customs notification was allowable when the export obligation was fulfilled and set aside the demand of Customs Duty.
M/s.Xomox Sanmar Ltd, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Director General of Foreign Trade/Respondent. The petitioner engaged in the manufacture of industrial valves and clears the final products both domestically as well as to the export market. The petitioner had received a purchase order from M/s.Thyssenkrupp on 22.06.2010 for the supply of 1451 numbers of Gate, Globe and Check valves (‘industrial valves’). EOUs should be treated on par with Importers, Eligible to claim Duty Exemptions u/s 5A of Central Excise Act: CESTAT M/s. HCL Technologies Ltd vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 649 The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has held that Export Oriented Units (EOUs) should be treated on par with Importers and shall be eligible to claim Duty Exemptions under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. The assessee, HCL Technologies Ltd., a multinational IT services and consulting company, is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) with a private bonded warehouse license.
The assessee had been awarded a tender by the Director of Defence Electronic Research Laboratory (DERL) for the supply of “Special Test Equipment in GSM Bands.” Prior to the procurement, DERL issued a duty exemption certificate to HCL Technologies, certifying that the GSM bands were exempt under Notification No. 10/1997-CE. SAD Exemption Benefit Allowable if Imported Pre-packed Form of Goods Meant for Retail Sale: CESTAT M/s. DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Custom CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 778 The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Special Additional Duty (SAD) exemption benefits were allowable if the imported pre-packed form of goods meant for the retail sale by the assessee. DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd, the appellant assessee filed Bills of Entry for clearance of 31360 bags of ordinary Portland Cement from Pakistan supplied by M/s. Maple Leaf Cement Limited, Pakistan. The assessee claimed the benefit of a 4% SAD exemption, which was applied to prepackaged bags intended for retail sale. CESTAT Upholds Availment of Exemption from Basic Customs Duty on ground of Demand proposed in SCN on Misconception of Law The Commissioner of Customs vs M/s. GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 827 The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the availment of exemption from the basic customs duty on the ground of demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice (SCN) on the misconception of fact and law. GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd, the respondent-assessee filed various Bills of Entry for the import of Wind Operated Electricity Generator(WOEG) and the assessee availed Basic Custom Duty (BCD)concession towards the import of blades/towers and foundation mounting parts, etc.
Import of Spares and Other Specific items for Repair of Vessel by Ocean-Going Vessel is Eligible for Exemption from Customs Duty under Exemption Notification: CESTAT Centre for Marine Living Resources & Ecology vs The Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 845 The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the import of spares and other specific items for repair of the vessel by the Ocean-Going Vessel was eligible for exemption from customs duty under exemption notification. Centre for Marine Living Resources & Ecology, the appellant assessee was an organization established by the Government of India under the Ministry of Earth Sciences for organizing, coordinating, and promoting development activities. Exemption Availed on Capital Goods Imported Without Fulfilling Export Obligation: Customs Duty is Payable on Export Commitment Fulfilled: Supreme Court COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS BANGALORE vs M/S. SHIVA ANALYTICALS (INDIA) LIMITED CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (SC) 253 The Supreme Court of India has clarified that where an importer assessee has availed a 100 per cent exemption from paying customs duty for the import of capital goods but failed to fulfil its export obligations stipulated by the Development Commissioner under the exemption policy and sold products outside the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), then the assessee is liable to pay customs duty based on the proportion of export commitments fulfilled. The duty payable shall not be based on the depreciated value of the total capital goods subjected to the customs duty.
The issue involved the Commissioner of Customs Bangalore as the appellant and M/S. Shiva Analyticals (India) Limited as the respondent. Excisable goods which are Exempted and Cleared for home consumption without Excise duty payment are Not Entitled to Get Benefit under Exemption Notification: CESTAT M/s Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1460 The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that restriction under Exemption Notification will apply if the excisable goods that are exempted or charged to nil rate of duty are cleared for home consumption without payment of duty. Paliwal Overseas Pvt. Limited, the appellant assessee was purchasing grey Yarn, and the part of the yarn used to be sent to another manufacturer to dye the dyed yarn was used in the manufacture of Handloom Durries and Rugs, and the same attracting nil rate of duty. No Customs Duty Demandable by invoking extended period of limitation unless there is evidence of collusion or willful suppression of facts: CESTAT M/S JAVERIA IMPEX INDIA PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ICD) NEW DELHI Tughlakabad, New Delhi CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1529 The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Customs Duty cannot be demanded by invoking an extended period of limitation unless there was evidence of collusion or willful suppression of facts. Javeria Impex India Pvt. Ltd, the appellant assessee was an importer and imported electric motors from China and filed two Bills of Entry the department alleged that the declared transactional value of goods was comparatively low. Rejection of Transactional Value on Export of Iron Ore Fines not in accordance with provisions of Section 14 of Customs Act: CESTAT Quashes Customs Duty Demand Krishna Traders vs Commissioner of Central Tax CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1531 The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the Customs duty demand for rejecting the transactional value of export of iron ore fines which was done not under section 14 of the Customs Act. Krishna Traders, the appellant assessee was an exporter of Iron Ore Fines and entered into a contract for sale with a buyer located in China, as per the contract the quantity to be supplied was 20,000 from Haldia Port at the rate of 62.5 USD WMT, and 25,000 WMT from Vizag Port at the rate of 62.5 USD.
Another contract was entered for a supply of 7000 WMT at the rate of 82.5 from Vizag Port. CESTAT Quashes Denial of Customs Duty Exemption on ground of Procedural Lapse M/s. Softel Overseas Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1569 The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the denial of Customs duty exemption on the grounds of procedural lapse. Sofitel Overseas Private Limited, the appellant assessee filed five Bills of Entry seeking the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Customs as amended vide Notification No.25/2013-Customs and paid duty @ 7.5% at the time of clearance of the said goods. Duty Exemption is Allowable u/s 5(1A) of Excise Act for First Clearance of 3500 MTs: CESTAT Cella Space Limited vs The Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1606 The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) has held that duty exemption is allowable under section 5(1A) of the Excise Act, 1944 for the First Clearance of 3500 MTs. M/s. Cella Space Limited, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of paper and paper boards falling under Chapter Subheading 4804 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
The appellant had availed exemption under Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 as amended by Notification No.4/2008-CE dated 1.3.2008 with effect from 1.4.2008 in respect of clearances made for home consumption during the period from 1.4.2008 to 7.8.2008. Failure to Examine issue of Customs Duty Exemption Benefit: CESTAT remands matter Lupin Limited vs Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 104 The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), remanded matter as there was failure to examine issue of customs duty exemption. The issue which arises for consideration here is whether the goods removed from SEZ to DTA (initially procured from DTA) are chargeable to customs duties in terms of section 30 of SEZ Act, 2005 read with rule 47 of SEZ Rules, 2006. No Penalty under Customs Act imposable on Licensee of Duty-Free Shop in absence of suppression of fact to Evade Tax: CESTAT M/s. Nuance Group (India) Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner of CustomsCITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 268 The Bangalore bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that no penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 is imposable on the licensee of a duty-free shop in the absence of suppression of fact to evade tax. The appellant M/s. Nuance Group ( India ) Private Limited was operating a Private Bonded Warehouse and duty-free shop at Bangalore International Airport under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 and they had to comply with the procedures specified in Trade Facility No.50/2005 dated 5.4.2005.
As per this Trade Facility Procedure, the appellant for every sale made from the duty-free shop should be covered by a voucher which shows the name of the passenger to whom the sale was affected, passport number, flight number of the aircraft of arrival and departure. Excise Duty Exemption cannot be Denied in absence of Wilful Suppression of Fact to Evade Tax: CESTAT Polymer Technologies International vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodara-i CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 331 The Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise duty exemption cannot be denied in the absence of wilful suppression of fact to evade tax. As there is no case of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade and the larger period of limitation is inapplicable in the present case.
The Appellant, Polymer Technologies International, were functioning as 100% EOU and was manufacturing an “Intraocular Lens” falling under Chapter 90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Appellant, Shri Hasmukh I. Patel, was an employee and authorized signatory of the 100% EOU. In respect of the goods cleared into DTA, the Appellant was availing exemption under Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31-3-2003. Customs Duty Exempted as Export Obligation under Advance Authorisation Scheme has Complied: CESTAT M/s Jewel Utensils Industries vs C.C. – Mundra CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 493 The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that customs duty exempted as an export obligation under the advance authorisation scheme has complied. It was found that the goods were cleared under the advance authorization scheme, according to which all the duties are exempted by way of debiting in the advance licence scheme.
M/s Jewel Utensils Industries , the appellant/assessee is a manufacturer and exporter of stainless steel utensils. The appellant imported a cold-rolled flat product of stainless steel of a size ranging from 600 mm to 1250 mm in width by availing the exemption under the Advance Authorization Scheme (Notification No. 18/2015-Cus) dated April 1, 2015. As per Notification No. 61/2015-Cus (ADD) dated December 11, 2015, the goods “Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel” of size ranging from 600 mm to 1250 mm, covered under CTH 7219 and originating in or exported from China, attract anti-dumping duty at a specified percentage of the landed value (AV+BCD). Madras HC Allows CVD Exemption on Silk Fabrics Import from China u/s 149 of Customs Act M/s.Microweb Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner of Customs Appraising Group CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1948 The Madras High Court has granted the petitioner an exemption from Countervailing Duty (CVD) on silk fabrics imported from China under Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004, in accordance with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.
A writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus. The petitioner requests the court to direct the respondent to promptly amend nine Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act. This amendment, as requested by the petitioner in a letter dated April 29, 2023, is necessary to enable the petitioner to claim an exemption from Countervailing Duty (CVD) under the Central Excise Notification No. 30/2004, dated July 9, 2004. Following this amendment, the petitioner intends to apply for a refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act for the excess CVD paid. CESTAT Grants Excise Duty Exemption for DTA Clearances, Upholding Proper Record Maintenance and Non-Applicability of SAD TUFROPES PVT LTD vs Commissioner of C.E. & S.T. CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 952 The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) granted excise duty exemption to the assessee for goods cleared into the Domestic Tariff Area ( DTA ), citing proper record maintenance and the non-applicability of Special Additional Duty ( SAD ).
Tufropes Pvt Ltd, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in the manufacturing of HDPE/PP ropes, nylon ropes, polyester ropes, and plastic waste & scrap, faced a duty demand following a Customs inspection. The demand related to the clearance of goods into the Domestic Tariff Area ( DTA ), and the core issue centered around the appellant’s eligibility for exemptions under the relevant Central Excise notifications for the period from 2006 to 2017. Dept Empowered to Recover Escaped Customs Duty for Non-Compliance with Post-Importation Conditions in Exemption Notification: CESTAT M/s. Pentafour Solec Technologies Ltd. vs Commissioner of CustomsCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 118 The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that the Customs Department has the authority to recover escaped duty when post-importation conditions of an exemption notification are not fulfilled. Pentafour Solec Technologies Ltd., the appellant, imported capital goods valued at Rs. 20,01,60,280 in 1997 under the zero-duty Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme.
The company was obligated to fulfill certain export obligations under the scheme. Duty Exemption certificate cannot be invalidated as delay occurred in applying before Ministry: CESTAT upholds Amendment of Bill of Entry u/s 149 of Customs Act Commissioner of Customs, Noida vs s Industrial Foams Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 116 In a recent case, the Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the amendment of the bill of entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and held that duty exemption certificates cannot be invalidated as delay occurred in applying before the concerned ministry. The bench found that the respondent had taken all the necessary steps to obtain the said certificate well in advance which was being delayed in the concerned ministry, even the submission of that application and receipt thereof can be considered as a valid document.