Tax Monthly Digest: September 2025

SUPREME COURTCustoms Act | Electronic Evidence Admissible Without S.138C(4) Certificate If Assessee's S.108 Statement Admits Contents : Supreme CourtCause Title: ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL ADJUDICATION, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS SURESH KUMAR AND CO. IMPEX PVT. LTD. & ORS.The Supreme Court recently held that electronic evidence seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (“DRI”) can be admissible even without a certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, if the assessees has acknowledged these the documents in the devices in their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.The Court clarified that where obtaining such a certificate is impossible, and the Record of Proceedings has been duly acknowledged by the assessee, the evidence collected cannot be treated as inadmissible merely for want of the formal certificate. If there is due compliance otherwise, the electronic evidence can be admitted.Supreme Court Allows Customs Duty Exemption To LG Electronics For Smart Watch Import From KoreaCause Title: M/S L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMSThe Supreme Court recently granted relief to LG Electronics India from paying customs duty on imported 'G Watch W7' smartwatches from South Korea, holding that a certificate of origin from a country with which India has a full customs duty exemption agreement is sufficient to claim such exemption.A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the LG Electronics appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) order, that declined LG's plea for seeking exemption from custom duty payment for imported watches reasoning that imported watches falls under CTH 8517 good's, which attracted a higher duty, and raised a demand along with penalties.In Tax Matters, Strict Letter Of Law Must Be Followed; No Tax Can Be Imposed By Inference Or Analogy : Supreme CourtCause Title: M/S. SHIV STEELS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.The Supreme Court observed that no tax can be imposed by inference or analogy when the taxing statutes do not authorize the imposition of tax. It added that tax authorities cannot bypass statutory limitation periods by administrative sanction.“In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter.”, the court observed.Customs Act | Provisional Release Of Seized Object Won't Extend Timelimit For Issuing Show Cause Notice In Pre-2018 Cases : Supreme CourtCase Title – Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja and connected casesCase no. – Civil Appeal No. 3489 of 2024The Supreme Court recently upheld a Delhi High Court order directing release of an imported Maserati car seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), upholding the HC's view that failure to issue a show-cause notice within time prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962 entitles the person to release of the seized goods.A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta further held that provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act does not stop the operation of Section 110(2), which mandates issuance of a show-cause notice within six months of the seizure.Converting Imported Goods Into Distinct, Marketable Products Qualifies As 'Manufacture'; Attracts Excise Duty: Supreme CourtCause Title: M/S QUIPPO ENERGY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD – IIThe Supreme Court on Friday (Sep.19) held that converting imported gas-generating sets (Gensets) into containerized “Power Packs” by placing them in steel containers and fitting them with essential components amounts to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, 1944, making the final product liable to excise duty.“The process of placing the Genset within the steel container and fitting that container with additional, integral components brings into existence a new, distinct, and marketable commodity. This process would thus amount to “manufacture” under Section 2(f)(i) of the Act, 1944. Consequently, the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on the goods manufactured.”, the court held.No Export Duty On Transfer From Domestic Tariff Area To SEZ : Supreme Court Dismisses Union's Appeal Against Adani PowerCause Title: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & OTHER VERSUS M/S ADANI POWER LTD.Observing that the movement of goods from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is a domestic supply and not an export outside India, the Supreme Court provided relief to Adani Power Ltd. and other entities from...

Tax Monthly Digest: September 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags