Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
CESTAT Hyderabad ruled that foreign markings on seized gold alone cannot substantiate smuggling allegations without further evidence.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that a partner of a penalized firm cannot face separate penalties for the same violation under customs law.
The CBIC has revised customs tariff values for gold, silver, and edible oils, effective from May 16, 2026.
CESTAT ruled that mandarin juice concentrate is classified as 'juice of any other single citrus fruit,' upheld duty demand while quashing penalties.
The Bombay High Court held that tax deposits made during ongoing GST raids do not automatically qualify as voluntary. Authorities are afforded opportunities for remedial action if refunds are warranted.
The ITAT upheld the disallowance of loan processing fees for loans not securing property for generating rental income, reiterating limitations on Section 24(b) deductions. This ruling clarifies acceptable expenses under the section.
The CESTAT ruled to reduce the penalty for fraudulently obtaining EODC to fulfill export obligations, applying the principle of proportional liability.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that imposing a separate penalty on a partner after penalizing the partnership firm is not permissible in Customs law due to lack of specific statutory provision.
The CBIC has revised customs tariff values for gold, silver, and edible oils effective May 16, 2026. Importers need to adjust to these changes for proper compliance in customs valuation.
The CESTAT Mumbai ruled that mandarin juice concentrate is correctly classified under a different category than orange juice, substantiating duty demands while quashing penalties. This decision clarifies tariff classifications for citrus products.
The CESTAT Bangalore ruled that an automatic soap dispenser cannot be classified as a toiletry spray since it only dispenses foam. Instead, it falls under the category of dispersing appliances, specifically under CTI 8424 89 90.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a motor vehicle tax demand is invalid if the corresponding permit was not duly countersigned. This decision clarifies tax liabilities associated with inter-state permits.