SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Dismisses Fox Mandal's Appeal In ₹3.89 Crore Service Tax Case
Case Title : Fox Mandal And Company vs Commissioner
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 134
The Supreme Court recently (March 25) dismissed an appeal filed by Fox Mandal and Company against the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Noida, declining to interfere with the CESTAT order, which upheld service tax and CENVAT-related demands aggregating to about Rs. 3.89 crore. While refusing to interfere with the CESTAT judgment dated December 11, 2024, which had upheld substantial service tax demands and remanded certain issues for reconsideration, a bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that no error of law or fact was made out.
Case Title : M/s Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax U.P. & Ors.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 5266/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 135
The Supreme Court has directed Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. to deposit Rs 3.5 crore in a GST dispute and ordered that no coercive action be taken against it for now. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing the company's challenge to a November 3, 2025, judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to entertain its writ petition. The company had earlier approached the High Court against assessment orders for 2021–22 and 2022–23, contending that they were passed ex parte without giving it access to key documents, including the SIB report.
Tax Exemptions Are 'Defeasible' Concessions, Not Enforceable Rights: Supreme Court
Case Title : State of Maharashtra vs Reliance Industries Ltd & Ors
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3012 - 3026 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 130
Holding that a tax exemption is only a “defeasible” concession, the Supreme Court has ruled that beneficiaries have no legally enforceable right to its continuation beyond the period of grant and that such benefits can be withdrawn by the State in public interest. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was allowing appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against a batch of industrial units and captive power producers, including Reliance Industries Ltd., challenging Bombay High Court judgments that had quashed notifications withdrawing electricity duty exemptions granted to industries generating power for captive use.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : Shri Dewan Publications v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax And Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1580 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 29
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that adjudication notice ought to be served through physical mode after cancellation of GST registration, as the taxpayer cannot access the portal thereafter. A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran held: “Once the registration is cancelled and the registered persons thus disabled from working on the Common Portal and in any case, are relieved of obligation to check the Common Portal thereafter, it is wholly natural and practical that any adjudication notice issued after cancellation of registration may be served through physically in terms of the provisions of Section 169 (1) (a) (b) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017.”
Case Title : M/S Jubair Enterprises v. Union of India and Another
The Allahabad High Court on 17 March held that GST registration cannot be cancelled merely because a taxpayer fails to reply to a show cause notice or appear on the date fixed for hearing, and that authorities must record reasons before taking such a drastic step. A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran set aside the cancellation of GST registration of Jubair Enterprises and granted the petitioner liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice.
Andhra Pradesh HC
State GST Authorities Cannot Detain Or Confiscate Goods Merely In Transit: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Golden Traders & Ors v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Anr.
Case Number : W.P. Nos. 541, 1756, 3097, 3225, 3227, 3252, 3254, 3258 and 3354 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 26
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held on 1 April that State GST authorities cannot invoke detention or confiscation powers for goods merely passing through the State in the course of inter-State trade, including on grounds such as valuation discrepancies or mismatch in quantity. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar held that such action exceeds jurisdiction in cases involving inter-State movement under the IGST framework. The Court stated: "Amounts rightfully due to State A or State C are being appropriated, by State B. It is our view that Section 129 or 130 cannot be pressed to vindicate such appropriation."
Bombay HC
Case Title : ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 7806/2025 & Batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 176
The Bombay High Court has stayed GST demands on insurers over policies issued to SEZ units, which the department claimed were for employees, prima facie finding the retrospective levy may be without jurisdiction prior to October 1, 2023. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Farhan P. Dubash held, "Prima-facie, we find much substance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that the designated officer would not have jurisdiction to retrospectively levy tax on the petitioners in respect of the supply in question, namely the sale of insurance policies to the SEZ unit."
Bombay HC Quashes Rs. 1.26 Crore Service Tax Demand For Failure To Comply With Pre-SCN Process
Case Title : M/s. Sheesha Sky Lounge Hospitality and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2574 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 177
The Bombay High Court on 12 March, quashed a service tax show cause notice, holding that failure to conduct mandatory pre-show cause notice (pre-SCN) consultation, as required under CBEC circulars, vitiates the entire proceedings. A Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that pre-SCN consultation, mandated by circulars issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, is a binding requirement and cannot be bypassed merely because summons were issued to the taxpayer.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside GST Order Passed Before Scheduled Date Of Hearing
Case Title : Rajkala Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1955 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 178
The Bombay High Court has set aside a GST adjudication order passed even before the scheduled date of hearing, holding that it was vitiated by a breach of natural justice. A bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that the order was passed before the scheduled hearing date fixed in the show cause notice. “The impugned order, however, was passed on 30 March 2022 in regard to which, admittedly, no hearing was granted to the petitioner as also no opportunity to file reply to the said notice, was not granted to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petition needs to succeed on the limited ground that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice.”, the court observed.
Case Title : NZS Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4815 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 179
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of NZS Traders Pvt. Ltd., holding that such a restriction made on apprehension of fraud cannot continue beyond one year and ceases to operate by law. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe explained that Rule 86A empowers GST authorities to block a taxpayer from using the credit available in its electronic credit ledger if they have reasons to believe that the credit has been wrongly or fraudulently availed.
Calcutta HC
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata v. Shri Anil Kumar Soni & Anr.
Case Number : CUSTA 30 of 2025 & CUSTA 31 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 79
The Calcutta High Court on 31 March restored the adjudicating authority's confiscation of 1,999.90 grams of gold, holding that clandestine transport and high scientific purity of bullion establish a “reasonable belief” of smuggling under the Customs Act. A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar allowed the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata's appeals, reinstated the confiscation and penalties, and set aside the Tribunal's order that had granted relief to the respondents, Anil Kumar Soni, owner of A.R.P. Ornaments, and Anil Kumar Gaur, the carrier.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Lava International Ltd. v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10977/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 318
The Delhi High Court has held that mobile importers, including Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., are entitled to interest on refunds of excess customs duty paid by them. A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by multiple importers, including Jaina Mobile India, Intex Technologies, and UT Electronics (Petitioners), all of whom had been granted refunds of excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) but were denied interest. However, no interest on refund was granted to Lava International, as there was no undue delay on part of the Department in re-assessing or processing the company's application.
Gauhati HC
Case Title : M/s Apurba Enterprise & Anr v. State of Assam & Ors
Case Number : WP(C)/1216/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 9
The Gauhati High Court has directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration where a taxpayer is willing to furnish pending returns and clear dues, observing that cancellation entails “serious civil consequences.” Justice Anjan Moni Kalita held that if the taxpayer complies with Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, the proper officer shall consider the case and pass appropriate orders. The case arose from a writ petition filed by Apurba Enterprise challenging cancellation of its GST registration dated December 7, 2019 under Section 29 of the CGST/AGST Act, along with withholding of contractual dues.
Gujarat HC
Cross-State ITC Transfer Cannot Be Denied on Amalgamation: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 7006 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 50
The Gujarat High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied on the ground that the transferor and transferee companies are located in different States in a case of amalgamation. A Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held, "The transfer of the ITC on amalgamation of the company is permissible as per the provision of Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules. Neither of the provision prohibits or debars transfer of the ITC on the ground that the transferee and the transferor company are located in different states. We are of the opinion that the respondent department cannot incorporate something in a statutory form ITC-02 on GST Portal which is absent in the statutory provisions. The remark which is mentioned on the Form GST ITC-02 does not find place in the statute. Neither the statute permits nor debars the transfer of ITC after the scheme of amalgamation has been approved by the NCLT. Such an action of restricting the transfer of ITC on the on-line GST portal is de hors the intention of the provision of Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules.”
Karnataka HC
Case Title : M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2021 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 44
The Karnataka High Court on 9 February 2026 held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied input tax credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax with the government. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar read down Section 16(2)(C) of the CGST / KGST Act and Rule 36(4) of the CGST / KGST Rules to set aside the order denying ITC to Instakart Services Private Limited.
Kerala HC
Earthen Roofing Tiles By Khadi Board-Recognised Unit Qualify For VAT Exemption: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Annamanada Kalimon Vyavasaya v. State of Kerala
Case Number : OT.REV NO. 30 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 60
The Kerala High Court on 12 March held that earthen roofing tiles manufactured by a unit recognised and financed by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board are eligible for tax exemption as “pottery” under the KVAT Act. A Division Bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji set aside tax demands raised against Annamanada Kalimon Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham Ltd., a cooperative society engaged in manufacturing clay products in Thrissur.
Orissa HC
Case Title : Rajendra Narayan Mohanty v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.2271 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 13
The Orissa High Court at Cuttack held that tax authorities cannot retain amounts deposited twice under a mistaken belief, as such retention would violate Article 265 of the Constitution. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman set aside an order rejecting the refund claim filed by the petitioner, Rajendra Narayan Mohanty, and allowed him to seek a fresh refund.
Telangana HC
Case Title : Bengal Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 6668 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 9
The Telangana High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by Bengal Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd., recording the State's statement that seized documents whose originals are missing will not be relied upon in adjudication, while permitting proceedings to continue on the basis of available material. A Bench of Chief Justice Apresh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed that once the State clarified that such missing documents would not be relied upon, the grievance of the petitioner stood addressed and adjudication could proceed in accordance with law.
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title : Bajaj Auto Limited v. Commissioner of Uttarakhand, State GST & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (M/B) No. 130 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 4
The Uttarakhand High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Bajaj Auto Limited challenging a GST adjudication order, holding that the requirement of pre-deposit for availing the appellate remedy cannot be a ground to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism under the GST Act. The bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay noted that an effective alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order and, in such circumstances, interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted.
CESTAT
Case Title : ANZ Support Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 20435-20436 of 20192
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 137
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has set aside the rejection of a service tax refund claim filed by ANZ Support Services India Pvt. Ltd., an SEZ unit, holding that denying refund on the ground that employee group medical and personal accident insurance do not fall within “General Insurance Services” is “absolutely irrelevant” in the facts of the case. A bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi while dealing with the department's objection that the insurance services did not fall within “General Insurance Services”, observed, "The question of rejecting the refund claim on a ground that General Insurance does not include the specific insurance claimed by the appellant is absolutely irrelevant, in as much as the insurance is for the employees of the appellant. Moreover, the question of referring to the Cenvat Credit Rules for the admissibility of the refund is also misplaced since the refund is based only on the ground that specified services on which tax is discharged is used in the authorised operations which admittedly the appellant has satisfied.”
Case Title : M/s. Doddanavar Brothers v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20085 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 138
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March held that service tax under the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) category cannot be levied where transportation is undertaken through individual truck operators without issuance of consignment notes. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member Bhagya Devi set aside the demand raised on freight expenses incurred for transportation of iron ore for export by Doddanavar Brothers, a mining exporter.
Case Title : M/s. Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 25401 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 139
On 24 March, the Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that “Expanded Fire Clay Grog” is correctly classifiable as a ceramic product under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 6902. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the appeal filed by Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the product satisfies the essential requirement for classification under Chapter 69, namely: “fired after shaping.”
Case Title : Flyjac Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Cochin Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20233 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 140
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has recently allowed appeals filed by Flyjac Logistics Pvt. Ltd., holding that freight margin and foreign exchange fluctuation gains cannot be treated as consideration for service tax. Observing that the issue is no longer res integra, the tribunal held, "Since, these issues are squarely covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 20650/2024 dated 23.07.2024 and 21361-21362/2025 dated 02.09.2025, demand against said impugned orders are unsustainable."
Invoice Errors Cannot Block CENVAT Credit If Receipt And Use of Goods Are Proven: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Kavveri Telecom Products Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore I Commissionerate
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 22044 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 141
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March clarified that minor discrepancies in invoices cannot justify denial of CENVAT credit where the receipt and use of goods are duly established. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao held that the denial of credit to Kavveri Telecom Products Ltd., the appellant, was unjustified, as it had produced sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating receipt, payment, and utilization of inputs.
Case Title : M/s Indra Sistemas India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 22044 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 142
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March held that exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus cannot be denied to a sub-contractor merely because their name does not appear in the main concession agreement, where its role is otherwise established on record. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao observed that the condition of being a “named sub-contractor” stands satisfied if the appointment is evident from agreements, communications, and certification by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
No Service Tax On Commission Paid To Foreign Agents For Services Outside India: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Cochin
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20938 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 143
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March held that no service tax is payable under the reverse charge mechanism on commission paid to foreign agents where the services are rendered and received outside India. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Mr. P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi observed: “Since the services are rendered abroad and not received in India, the question of liability to pay service tax under Section 66A does not arise.”
No Service Tax On Invoices Issued Before Completion Of Work: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : M/s APN Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Ghaziabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70680 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 137
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March held that service tax is not payable on invoices issued before completion of work. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed an appeal by APN Infra Pvt. Ltd., observing: “Invoice is required to be issued within 30 days after completion of the service or on receipt of payment towards value of taxable service.”
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹6.25 Lakh Service Tax, CENVAT Demand Against Advertising Company
Case Title : Radiant Advertising & Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75351 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 143
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has recently set aside a demand of Rs. 6,25,706 against an advertising company, holding that the extended period of limitation was not invocable and that no excess CENVAT credit was availed. The order was passed by a coram comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, which held that the demand raised by invoking the extended period was unsustainable as there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade tax and further found no merit in the allegation of excess CENVAT credit.
Boronated Calcium Nitrate Not Eligible For Concessional Duty As 'Calcium Nitrate': CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Yara Fertilizers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10247 of 2024- DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 138
On 1 April, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that “Boronated Calcium Nitrate” is a distinct product from “Calcium Nitrate” and is therefore not eligible for concessional customs duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh dismissed three appeals filed by Yara Fertilizers India Pvt. Ltd., holding: “Boronated Calcium Nitrate imported by the appellant is a different product than Calcium Nitrate and therefore, the product is not eligible to concessional rate of duty under Entry No.225(I)(b) of Notification No.50/2017-Cus.”
Service Tax Leviable Even On Pre-2008 Loading Of Goods For Transportation: Hyderabad CESTAT
Case Title : M/s Agarwal Global Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 25817 of 2013 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz
CESTAT(HYD) 139
On 1 April, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that loading of goods onto trucks for delivery to customers constitutes “cargo handling service” (CHS) and is liable to Service Tax even prior to the 2008 amendment. The Bench, comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad, was hearing an appeal filed by Agarwal Global Steels Ltd. against an Order-in-Appeal dated 19 November 2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad-IV, which had confirmed a Service Tax demand of Rs. 6,02,741/-.
CESTAT Chennai Rules Transportation Charges Not Taxable In C&F Services Before May 2015
Case Title : Toll India Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41891 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 144
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 April, held that reimbursable transportation charges paid to a clearing and forwarding (C&F) agent do not form part of the taxable value of services for the period prior to the 2015 amendment to the Finance Act. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Mr. Ajayan T.V. partly allowed the appeal filed by Toll India Logistics Pvt. Ltd., clarifying that only the consideration received for the actual service rendered is taxable.
Case Title : M/s. Ajab Singh & Co. v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 54194 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 140
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has held that Coronation Park, being a historical site of national importance, is eligible for exemption from Service Tax under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya heard cross appeals filed by Ajab Singh & Co. and the Revenue against a common Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak.
CESTAT Chennai Upholds Customs Duty On Imported Natural Rubber, Dismisses MRF's Appeal
Case Title : M/s MRF Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40936 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 145
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March, held that the levy of Additional Duty of Customs equivalent to Rubber Cess on imported natural rubber is legally sustainable. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao dismissed the appeal filed by MRF Limited, noting that the issue stands covered against the taxpayer by coordinate Bench and Larger Bench decisions.
Job Worker Entitled To CENVAT Credit On Capital Goods Despite Invoice Name Mismatch: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 41350, 41351 of 2017 & 41699 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 146
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March, held that a job worker can avail CENVAT credit on capital goods even if invoices are not issued in its name, provided the goods are received, accounted for, and used in the manufacturing process. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held: “In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the allegation of the Revenue that ACPL had availed ineligible CENVAT credit is clearly unsustainable and is also not supported by any statutory provision and hence, the demand in the impugned orders cannot sustain.”
Case Title : M/s Western Farm Fresh (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40283 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHE) 147
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March, held that a claim for exemption under a customs notification cannot succeed when the goods are specifically excluded and prescribed conditions are not met. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal filed by Western Farm Fresh (P) Ltd. against the Department. The Tribunal stated: “We find that there is no dispute as regards the withdrawal of the benefit vide Note 2 to Notification No.125 supra and hence, clearly, the Appellant's claim for the benefit was not in order.”
Case Title : M/s. General Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 531 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 141
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has recently set aside a demand exceeding Rs. 1.52 crore, holding that the valuation of goods manufactured through job work and sold to job workers cannot be determined on arbitrary assumptions. The tribunal ruled that where goods are cleared on a principal-to-principal basis and price is the sole consideration under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, the transaction value must be accepted. The ruling was delivered by a bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi in the case of General Commodities Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in the export of coffee and spices.
Case Title : Shri Balaji Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi North
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 52586 Of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 142
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld a service tax demand of Rs 64,61,530 against a firm supplying manpower to Government hospitals. The tribunal held that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of the reverse charge mechanism under a 2012 notification, as the service recipients were not “business entities registered as a body corporate.” A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order confirming the demand along with interest and penalty.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Union Budget 2026-27: Centre Notifies Finance Act, 2026
The Central Government has notified the Finance Act, 2026, giving statutory effect to the budget proposals for the financial year 2026-27 after receiving presidential assent on March 30, 2026. The Act, published in the Gazette of India, states, "An Act to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2026-27.” Most provisions of the legislation will come into force from April 1, 2026, including those relating to income-tax rates and amendments to tax laws, while a limited set of provisions dealing with implementation and administrative matters will be brought into effect on dates to be notified separately.
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has advised taxpayers to approach adjudicating authorities for issuance of a rectification order in cases where they are unable to file appeals on the GST portal due to a “NIL” demand reflected in adjudication orders. In an advisory dated April 3, 2026, GSTN noted that taxpayers are facing difficulties in filing appeals in such cases despite underlying disputes on tax liability.