SUPREME COURT
Case Title : DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE (HQS) & ORS. VERSUS GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8241 – 8244 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 214
The Supreme Court has recently held that GST liability on online gaming transactions does not depend on whether the underlying game is one of skill or chance, ruling that the levy is attracted by the supply of actionable claims arising from money staked on uncertain outcomes. Games A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said the taxable event under the GST framework is the supply of actionable claims generated by staking money on uncertain outcomes and not the underlying game itself. The court accordingly upheld the constitutional validity of the GST levy on such transactions and rejected the contention that Parliament lacked the legislative competence to impose the tax.
Supreme Court Holds Appeals On Excisability Of Goods Lie Before It, Not High Courts
Case Title : M/s Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 8030 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 221
The Supreme Court has recently held that disputes over whether goods are excisable fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and cannot be decided by High Courts. Setting aside a Karnataka High Court judgment, the Court observed, "The provisions of Sections 35G and Section 35L, read together, always pointed to one and only one conclusion: that the question of excisability fell within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court."
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : Tejashva Tractors And Motors Through Its Prop-Sakshi Singh Parmar Versus Union Of India And Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 2127 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 42
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that the GSTN portal should be refined to allow the filing of additional or supplementary replies online. It also directed that a copy of its order be communicated to GSTN for consideration and compliance. The court noted that notices, replies, and orders are otherwise exchanged through the portal. While dealing with the rejection of Tejashva Tractors And Motors' refund application, the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran suggested: “Once such online mode is described as the preferred mode of communication between the revenue authorities/noticee/tax-payers, it would be wholly in the fitness of things that the GSTN Portal may be worked to accommodate filing of additional/supplementary replies also through online mode.”
Wrong Rubber Stamp Below Signature Does Not Invalidate Show Cause Notice: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Dev Trading Company Versus Union Of India And 2 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 2664 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 43
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the use of an incorrect rubber stamp beneath the signature on a show-cause notice does not create a jurisdictional defect. The Court said this would not affect jurisdiction where the authority issuing the notice is otherwise vested with powers under the relevant Act and Rules. Rejecting a jurisdictional challenge raised by Dev Trading Company to a show-cause notice issued under the Health Security se National Security Cess Rules, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed, “Once authority created under the Act read with the Rules does vest in the signatory to the show-cause notice, no material difference or lack of jurisdiction may arise for reason of wrong/other rubber stamp impression affixed below that signature.”
Allahabad High Court Orders Release Of GST Taxpayer Over Arrest Papers Lacking CBIC-DIN
Case Title : Ashish Tyagi v. Director General Of Gst Intelligence And 2 Others
Case Number : HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 509 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 45
The Allahabad High Court has recently directed the release of a GST taxpayer after holding that his arrest and detention were illegal because the grounds of arrest did not bear a CBIC-DIN and the arrest memo failed to disclose the place of arrest. Petitioner Ashish Tyagi was arrested in connection with proceedings under Section 132(1)(a), 132(1)(f) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017 in a case initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghaziabad.
Calcutta HC
Case Title : Mega Flex Plastics Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : MAT 364 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 143
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed Mega Flex Plastics Limited's challenge to a GST ruling that treated its polypropylene leno bags as plastic products rather than textile products. Packaging A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the order of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) and a Single Judge's decision refusing to interfere with it.
Delhi HC
Case Title : PEI Industries & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7725/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 584
The Delhi High Court has held that the closure of proceedings by State GST authorities under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not, by itself, prevent Central GST authorities from proceeding under Section 74 of the Act, observing that the two provisions operate on "altogether different considerations." A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed: "It is apparent that Section 73 and Section 74 of the Act operates in different arenas. The language of said sections, recourse to be taken in regard to said sections, can very well be looked into by its face value."
Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court Holds DRC-01 Cannot Replace Statutory Show Cause Notice Under GST Act
Case Title : M/s Riyan Enterprises and Anr. v. The State of Assam
Case Number : WP(C)/2258/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 14
The Gauhati High Court on 13 May held that GST authorities under the Assam GST Act cannot initiate and conclude proceedings under Section 73 solely on the basis of a Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01, reiterating that issuance of a proper statutory show cause notice is a mandatory precondition for raising a tax demand. Courts & Judiciary Justice Manish Choudhury allowed the petition filed by Riyan Enterprises and set aside the adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the Assam GST Act for alleged tax liability.
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Holds Section 16(5) Overrides Section 16(4), Bars ITC Denial For Delayed Returns
Case Title : We Match v. State Tax Officer TPS Circle (Palarivattom) & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 16984 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER)
The Kerala High Court on 19 May held that authorities cannot deny Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a registered taxpayer merely on the ground of delayed filing of returns under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, where the taxpayer satisfies the conditions prescribed under Section 16(5), a subsequent relaxation provision. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. allowed a writ petition filed by We Match and quashed the assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, which had disallowed ITC claims for the assessment year 2018–19.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title : SNS Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 9413 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 40
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that once the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has been constituted and commenced functioning, parties should ordinarily pursue the statutory appellate remedy before the Tribunal rather than invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction. A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed a writ petition filed by SNS Minerals Pvt. Ltd. challenging an appellate order that had set aside a GST refund of ₹84.26 lakh granted to the company, while granting it liberty to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules PLC Not Separately Taxable, Sets Aside DLF Advance Ruling Orders
Case Title : DLF Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and others
Case Number : CWP No. 17530 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 28
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 13 May held that Preferential Location Charges (PLC) collected by developers for offering a preferred location within a housing project form part of the composite construction service and cannot attract separate taxation. Courts & Judiciary A Division Bench of Justices Deepak Sibal and Lapita Banerji allowed a writ petition filed by DLF Limited and quashed the Advance Ruling Authority order dated 28 August 2020 and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling order dated 28 March 2022, finding both inconsistent with the subsequent GST Council recommendation and the Government of India clarification.
Rajasthan HC
BOT Concessionaire Liable To Pay GST On Toll Rights Received As Consideration: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : CG Tollway Ltd v Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15048/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 25
The Rajasthan High Court on 22 May held that toll collection rights granted under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) concession agreement constitute consideration for taxable works contract services and are not exempt from GST merely because toll collection itself enjoys exemption. Legal A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Shah dismissed a writ petition filed by CG Tollway Ltd challenging orders of the GST authorities that had demanded Rs. 16.36 GST, interest and penalty on services rendered under a concession agreement with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
CESTAT
Individual Villas In Gated Communities Not Residential Complexes For Service Tax: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Green Avenue Homes & Gardens v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40870/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHN) 308
A gated community comprising individual villas on separate plots does not become a "residential complex" for service tax purposes merely because it has a common project identity and shared amenities, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held.Economics A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar passed the ruling while allowing the appeal filed by Green Avenue Homes & Gardens and setting aside a service tax demand of ₹4.04 crore, along with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Upholds Classification of AKD Wax Imported by Arjun Chemicals as Wax Product
Case Title : Nippon Sea Freight Systems v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40130 of 2014
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 309
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the Customs Department's classification of Alkyl Ketene Dimer (AKD Wax) imported by Arjun Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. under the tariff entry applicable to wax products. Chemicals Industry However, the Tribunal held that Customs authorities could not invoke the extended limitation period because they had accepted the importer's classification of the product for several years. It therefore restricted recovery of differential duty to the normal period.
Case Title : Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Limited v. Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50378 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 310
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has set aside the confiscation of imported capital goods and the levy of interest and penalty imposed on Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Ltd. The tribunal found that the company could not fulfill its export obligation under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme because the imported goods and hotel premises were auctioned by lenders. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that “the export obligation could not be met because the goods imported and the premises of the hotel were auctioned.”
Case Title : Shree Karthik Papers Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.
Case Number : Central Sales Tax Appeal No. 05 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 311
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that paper products transferred by Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. to agents in Karnataka, Kerala, Odisha, and West Bengal after August 1, 1995 were consignment sales and not inter-State sales. The tribunal set aside a Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal order that had restored assessment on a turnover of ₹1.51 crore by treating the transactions as inter-State sales.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs v. Mr. S. Murugan
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41158 of 2016
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 314
On 2 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), held that authorities may penalise a customs broker for failing to exercise proper supervision and due diligence, but cannot revoke a customs broker licence in the absence of evidence showing deliberate involvement in fraud. Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V., while hearing appeals arising from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation into alleged fraudulent drawback exports carried out through dummy firms, upheld the forfeiture of the customs broker's security deposit but declined to interfere with the Commissioner's decision not to revoke the licence.
CESTAT Sets Aside ₹70 Lakh Penalties In Cigarette Smuggling, Faults DRI For Incomplete Investigation
Case Title : Shri B.A. Suresh Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40678 of 2018
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 312
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 June held that a penalty for abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained without identifying and establishing the liability of the actual importer. Judicial Member P. Dinesha set aside the penalties of Rs.35 lakh each, imposed on B.A. Suresh Kumar, proprietor of Arunachalam Shipping, and C. Solomon Selvaraj, proprietor of Thivya Agencies in an alleged cigarette smuggling case after finding that the Revenue had conducted a one-sided and incomplete investigation.
Customs Cannot Deny FTA Benefits By Unilaterally Discarding Certificate Of Origin: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Veekay Diamants v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41873 of 2016
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 313
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 June held that Customs authorities cannot unilaterally reject a valid Certificate of Origin (CoO) issued by a foreign authority and recompute local value-added content (LVAC) using a methodology not prescribed under law. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that authorities cannot deny preferential tariff benefits under a free trade agreement by bypassing the Rules of Origin and the verification procedure prescribed therein and set aside a customs duty demand of Rs.5.68 lakh and penalties imposed on a Mumbai-based importer.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Sub-Contractor Not An Independent GTA, Sets Aside ₹90 Lakh Service Tax Demand
Case Title : M/s. Vinoth Shipping Services v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42065 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 315
On 2 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside a service tax demand of Rs.90.26 lakh against Vinoth Shipping Services, holding that a sub-contractor who only arranges transportation for a principal contractor cannot be treated as an independent Goods Transport Agency (GTA) liable to tax under the reverse charge mechanism. Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the appeal and quashed the demand, interest, and penalties, finding that the appellant only acted as a facilitator for its principal contractor, Aspinwall & Co. Pvt. Ltd., which had already paid service tax on the transportation services.
CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Duty Exemption On Edible-Grade Oils Imported For Cosmetic, Pharmaceutical Use
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Import), NS-I v. Pioma Chemicals
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87686 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 316
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed a Revenue appeal challenging customs duty exemption granted to Pioma Chemicals on imports of refined peanut oil, sunflower oil, walnut oil, almond oil and macadamia nut oil. The tribunal held that the benefit could not be denied on the ground that the oils were intended for use in cosmetic and pharmaceutical products. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the exemption benefit to the importer.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Visakhapatnam - I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21482 of 2014
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 317
On 2 June, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that consideration received by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) from contractors for transferring toll collection rights constitutes a taxable service and does not qualify as a sovereign function. Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi dismissed three appeals filed by NHAI challenging service tax demands, interest, and penalties arising from agreements granting toll collection rights at various toll plazas in Andhra Pradesh.
CESTAT New Delhi Rejects CENVAT Credit Denial For Invoice Defects, Allows Jayaswal NECO Appeal
Case Title : Jayaswal NECO Industries Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 55196 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 318
On 2 June, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that authorities cannot deny CENVAT credit merely on the basis of procedural defects in invoices when the recipient has actually received and used the services in its business operations. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya allowed the appeal filed by Jayaswal NECO Industries Ltd. and set aside the denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 53.94 lakh. The Tribunal also dismissed the Department's appeal against the grant of credit of Rs. 67.50 lakh.
Case Title : M/s. Rajan Jhiriwal v. Additional Director General (Adjudication)
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 51464 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 319
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 June held that the Department cannot reclassify a product after consistently accepting its classification for several years through departmental orders, and consequently set aside an excise duty demand arising from such reclassification. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya allowed appeals filed by Rajasthan-based manufacturer Rajan Jhiriwal and its partners, and set aside the adjudication order confirming central excise duty, interest and penalties.
Demurrage Paid To Foreign Vessel Owners Not Taxable As Port Service: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 22362 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 321
On 3 June, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that demurrage charges paid by Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (RINL) to foreign vessel owners for delays in loading or unloading cargo cannot attract service tax because such charges are contractual payments connected with transportation of goods and not consideration for any taxable service. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed RINL's appeals and set aside the service tax demands on demurrage charges, dispatch money and consulting engineering services.
No Service Tax Under RCM On Railway Space Licence Fees For Ads: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax Guntur - GST v. M/s Prakash Arts Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30179 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 322
On 3 June, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be demanded under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) from Prakash Arts Pvt. Ltd. for licence fees paid to Railways for use of space to display advertisements, as the arrangement amounted to renting of immovable property and not “support service”. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original in favour of the taxpayer.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside ₹1.44 Crore Customs Duty Demand Against Bharti Gems, PP Jewellers
Case Title : M/s P P Jewellers & Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51904 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 323
On 3 June, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside a customs duty demand of Rs.1.44 crore, along with confiscation of goods and penalties imposed on P P Jewellers & Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Bharti Gems, Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. and related parties, holding that the Customs Department failed to prove diversion of duty-free imported gold and silver or any fraudulent export activity. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed all seven appeals and quashed the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur.
Case Title : Devinder Pramod v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD TKD, New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 128 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 324
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a redemption fine imposed in connection with the export of ketamine to China after holding that the goods had already been exported and were no longer available for confiscation. Technical Member Rajeev Tandon partly allowed the appeal. He, however, upheld the appellant's liability for his role in the export operation and reduced the penalty imposed on him to ₹5 lakh. The Tribunal held, “The fact that they are not being available for confiscation is, therefore, imperative. To this extent, the fine imposed would not be sustainable in the first place.”
Procedural Defects In Invoices Cannot Defeat SAD Refund Entitlement: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Cape Electric Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40308 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 325
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has allowed an appeal filed by Cape Electric Corporation and set aside orders rejecting Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund claims of ₹18.82 lakh. The claims arose from imported goods that were subsequently sold in the domestic market on payment of VAT. The Division Bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that the department could not deny the refund claims on the basis of reconstructed invoice copies. The original refund records had been misplaced by the department, and the importer had been directed to reconstruct the file.
Case Title : M/s. NEPC Agro Foods Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42197 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 326
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that a tea estate lease arrangement undertaken for plantation activities could not be artificially split and taxed under different service categories. The tribunal found that the arrangement constituted a composite agricultural transaction. A Division Bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed two appeals filed by NEPC Agro Foods Limited. The Bench set aside service tax demands raised for the period from November 2009 to June 2017.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside ₹37.74 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels
Case Title : Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40382 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 328
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a service tax demand of ₹37.74 lakh raised against Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Ltd. It held that the hotel chain was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on specified common input services while also claiming the benefit of abatement under the applicable service tax notification. A Division Bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed an appeal filed by the company. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Remuneration Paid To Thriveni Earth Movers Directors Not Service Taxable
Case Title : Thriveni Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40807 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 329
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently set aside service tax demands raised on remuneration paid by Thriveni Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. to its whole-time directors. The tribunal held that such remuneration could not be subjected to service tax because the directors were working in an employer-employee relationship with the company. A coram of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the company's appeals against a common order. The order had confirmed service tax demands, interest and penalties on directors' remuneration for the period from April 2014 to June 2017.
Other Developments
Centre Mandates DGFT Import Authorisation For Specified Silver Imports
The Central Government has tightened import policy conditions for specified silver products by mandating that imports of such items be backed by a valid Import Authorisation issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The change was notified by the DGFT on June 2 and takes effect immediately. The revised conditions apply to silver powder, silver grains, silver containing 99.9 per cent or more by weight, and certain other forms of unwrought silver classified under Chapter 71 of the Indian Trade Classification (Harmonised System) 2022 import policy schedule, specifically ITC HS codes 71061000, 71069110, 71069120 and 71069190.
CBIC Directs Customs Formations Not To Link Entry Inward And Sail-Out Clearance With Vessel Boarding
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has directed customs formations across the country not to link the grant of Entry Inward or Vessel Sail-out Clearance with the physical boarding of vessels by customs officers, noting that such practices cause avoidable delays in cargo operations at ports. In Circular No. 26/2026-Customs dated 15 May 2026, the Board noted that at certain ports customs officers grant Entry Inward only after they physically board vessels post-berthing, and similarly delay Sail-out clearance until they complete boarding formalities. CBIC stated that these practices conflict with the statutory scheme under the Customs Act, 1962.