LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Monthly Digest: May 2026
Kapil Dhyani
4 Jun 2026 12:48 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : M/s Bengal Cold Rollers Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 12390/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 182
The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the Revenue regarding the digitisation of 14 files seized in a GST investigation that are now stated to be missing in the case of Bengal Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd. The taxpayer argued that the absence of the original files affected its ability to establish the genuineness of transactions in pending GST adjudication proceedings. A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan noted the Revenue's stand that although the original physical files were missing, all the documents had already been digitised and supplied to the taxpayer in a pen drive.
Supreme Court Requests Early Delhi HC Hearing In Pernod Ricard's ₹3,000 Crore Customs Duty Dispute
Case Title : PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.5200-5201/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Delhi High Court to hear, within weeks, Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd's challenge to a September 2025 customs adjudication order in a valuation dispute in which it allegedly faces duty liability of around Rs 3,000 crore. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh noted that Pernod Ricard's writ petition before the Delhi High Court was listed for July 28, 2026.
Case Title : STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3910 OF 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 189
The Supreme Court on Friday held that a state cannot impose its own Value-Added Tax (VAT) on a transaction that qualifies as an inter-state sale merely because the Central Sales Tax Act deems the sale to have taken place within that state for the limited purpose of identifying which state may collect tax. A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held that where the statutory provision defining an inter-state sale conflicts with the provision determining the deemed location of a sale, the former prevails.
Case Title : RAJASTHAN METALS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 16692/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 191
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Union Government's stand in a dispute where importers have challenged customs authorities' jurisdiction to question preferential duty claims under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) despite valid Certificates of Origin issued by the exporting country. The Court also directed that no final adjudication order be passed in the matter for now. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Manmohan was hearing special leave petitions filed by importers, including Rajasthan Metals, against a Delhi High Court order.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Future Maker Directors In Rs 54.77 Crore Service Tax Evasion Case
Case Title : RADHE SHYAM & ANR. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3559/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 193
The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to Radhey Shyam and another senior official of Future Maker Life Care Pvt Ltd in a Rs 54.77 crore service tax evasion case. The case arises from allegations that the multi-level direct marketing company failed to discharge its statutory tax liabilities. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that continued custody of the petitioners would serve no useful purpose in the tax case. The Court noted that assets worth about Rs 261 crore, including cash and immovable properties linked to the company and family members, had already been attached.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Relief To RSRTC In ₹16 Crore Service Tax Dispute
Case Title : THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CGST JAIPUR VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Case Number : Diary No.24485/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 197
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a tribunal ruling that granted major relief to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) in a long-running service tax dispute involving demands exceeding ₹16 crore over allegations that it operated as a “tour operator” and failed to pay tax on certain other services. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jaipur, against a January 6 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, Gujarat v. M/s Reliance Industries Limited
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 199
The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd. in its long-running customs classification dispute, holding that imported n-Hexane cannot be treated as motor spirit merely because its flash point is below 25°C. The court held that the Customs Department failed to prove that the product satisfied all conditions required for such classification, including suitability for use as fuel in spark ignition engines.
Case Title : COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX Versus M/S DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number : Diary No. 24478-2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on an appeal filed by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (DMRC) challenging a CESTAT ruling that upheld a service tax demand of over ₹45 crore. The demand relates to upfront fees received under long-term lease arrangements for property development linked to the Delhi Metro project. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice and agreed to hear the case on merits. "Issue notice on the Civil Appeal as well as on the application for condonation of delay."
Case Title : STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs JSW STEEL LTD AND ANR
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.18141-18142/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 201
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court ruling directing Maharashtra authorities to refund Rs 47.47 crore in electricity duty to JSW Steel, upholding the company's claim to exemption till August 2019 under the State's incentive scheme. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the State of Maharashtra's special leave petitions challenging the April 2 judgment. “We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel for the respondents/caveators. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order(s). The Special Leave Petitions are hence dismissed.”
Supreme Court Upholds 28% GST On Online Money Gaming, Fantasy Sports; 2023 Amendments Retrospective
Case Title : DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE (HQS) Vs GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number : SLP(C) No. 19366-19369/2023 Diary No. 30797 / 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of the GST framework taxing online gaming, fantasy sports, and casino transactions involving staking on uncertain outcomes, affirming the 28% levy applicable to such taxable actionable claims. It also held that the 2023 GST amendments, which specifically brought online money gaming, casinos, and horse racing within the revised tax framework, are merely clarificatory and therefore apply retrospectively.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : Manoj Kumar, Proprietor of M/S Sai Traders v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that where a taxpayer discloses the actual date of communication of an order under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the burden shifts to the Revenue to rebut that assertion with cogent material. It further held that the appellate authority is bound to give an independent finding on the date of communication of the order.
Andhra Pradesh HC
University Affiliation, NOCs Not 'Supply', No GST On Statutory Functions: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Kakinada v. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : W.P.No.23535
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 35
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 April, held that services provided by universities, such as grant of affiliation and issuance of No Objection Certificates (NOCs), are not liable to GST, as these activities are statutory in nature and do not qualify as “business” or “supply” under GST law. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, while hearing a batch of writ petitions including those filed by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada and other similarly placed State universities, also held that amounts collected for affiliation, accreditation, and related approvals are not taxable services under the GST framework.
Bombay HC
Case Title : Tata Sons Private Ltd. Vs Union of India, through the Ministry of Finance
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 4914 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 250
The Bombay High Court has held that the Rs. 8,450 crore paid by Tata Sons to NTT Docomo under an arbitral award cannot be subjected to GST. The payment arose from a dispute over Docomo's exit rights under a shareholders' agreement in Tata Teleservices, and the Court rejected the tax department's claim that it amounted to a taxable service. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was considering whether settlement of the arbitral award and the accompanying consent terms could be treated as a “supply” under GST law.
Case Title : Manjeet Singh son of Ujagar Singh Vs The Chief Controller Revenue Authority & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 13113 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 270
The Bombay High Court has held that the government cannot retain stamp duty wrongly paid by a citizen merely because there was a short delay in seeking a refund. The Court said procedural delay cannot defeat a person's substantive right to recover money mistakenly paid under a wrong stamp duty head, particularly when the transaction could not proceed further. A single-judge bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that the state cannot “unjustly enrich itself” by forfeiting money paid due to an inadvertent mistake. The court reproduced the Supreme Court's observation that the State should not ordinarily rely on technicalities while dealing with citizens.
Bombay High Court Directs Emirates To Pursue GST Appeal In Air Cargo Services Tax Dispute
Case Title : Emirates Vs State of Maharasthra
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO.10258 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 269
The Bombay High Court recently disposed of a writ petition filed by Emirates challenging a GST demand order passed by the Maharashtra State Tax Department over taxation of air cargo transportation services. The airline argued that transportation of goods by aircraft from India to destinations outside India, along with ancillary services, formed part of a composite supply exempt from GST under a Central Government notification issued in 2018 granting exemption to export air cargo transportation services.
Bombay High Court Quashes Post-Merger GST Demand Against Vodafone Mobile Services
Case Title : Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly known as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.) Vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 6637 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 273
The Bombay High Court has recently held that GST proceedings initiated against Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. after it ceased to exist due to its merger with Idea Cellular Ltd. and Vodafone India Ltd. were void ab initio. The court set aside the adjudication order and held that the show cause notice itself was issued without jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed that, “the show-cause notice itself having been issued without jurisdiction, the proceedings stand vitiated and are rendered void ab initio.”
Case Title : Valmet Flow Control Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 14685 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 275
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a GST refund claim cannot be rejected merely because the taxpayer had earlier filed another refund application for a broader tax period, where the later claim was filed within the limitation period and there is no statutory bar against such a claim. Referring to Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, which governs refund claims, the Court said: “Section 54 does not provide any bar for a party to maintain more than one application, and more particularly, in a case where there is an inadvertent mistake or lapse.”
Case Title : M/s D P Jain & Co. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : GST, Corporate Guarantee, Taxable Supply, Consideration, Rule 28 CGST Rules, DGGI, Supply of Services, Holding Company, Subsidiary Company, Edelweiss Financial Services
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 281
The Bombay High Court has held that D.P. Jain & Co. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. cannot be subjected to GST for corporate guarantees it issued to State Bank of India and Bank of Maharashtra to secure loans granted to its group companies, as the company received no consideration for furnishing those guarantees. A Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta observed: “There was no flow of consideration for the rendering of services. Therefore, taxability does not arise There was no consideration for the corporate guarantees were issued by the Petitioner on behalf of the companies.”
Case Title : IDFC First Bank Limited Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3390 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 280
The Bombay High Court has quashed a ₹10.25 crore GST demand raised against Capital First Limited post its merger with IDFC First Bank. It held that proceedings initiated against a company that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation are void ab initio and unsustainable in law. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed that despite repeated intimations about the merger, the department continued proceedings against the non-existent entity. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, the Court reiterated that “the initiation of assessment proceedings against an entity which had ceased to exist was void ab initio.”
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Treats Polypropylene Sacks As Plastic, Not Textile Products In GST Dispute
Case Title : Mega Flex Plastics Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : MAT 364 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 167
The Calcutta High Court has held that polypropylene leno bags manufactured by Mega Flex Plastics Limited should be treated as plastic sacks, not textile products, for GST purposes. A Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed that the company's bags were commonly known in the market as “plastic sacks” and not textile sacks. The court held, “The sacks manufactured by the appellant are commonly known in the market as plastic sacks. They are not known as synthetic textile sacks or textile sacks.”
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Directs Release of Seized Gold, Notes Redemption Relief Already Granted
Case Title : HARISH KUMAR VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & GENERAL)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12711/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 463
The Delhi High Court has directed Customs authorities to release seized gold after noting that an individual passenger had already been granted redemption of the goods in appeal, which was affirmed in revision. A bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed that the petitioner, Harish Kumar, had secured substantial relief through the appellate process, which stood affirmed by the Revisional Authority.
Case Title : Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, Cgst Division
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17500/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 474
The Delhi High Court on Friday reiterated that education consultancy, marketing, and recruitment support services rendered by an Indian entity to foreign universities would not qualify as “intermediary services” under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and would instead constitute export of services eligible for GST refund. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited, which had challenged an order rejecting its refund claim of ₹2.63 crore.
Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Tax On Agricultural Income, Says Issue Lies with Legislature
Case Title : Aakash Goel v. GNCTD
The Delhi High Court has held that Courts cannot issue directions compelling the legislature or executive to enact a law, including for taxation of agricultural income, and dismissed a public interest litigation seeking such relief. A Division Bench comprising Justices D.K. Upadhyaya and Tejas Karia dismissed the petition as “highly misconceived” and held that no mandamus can be issued to direct legislation on taxation of agricultural income. The judges said: "We cannot issue a mandamus asking them to legislate."
Delhi High Court Sets Aside 'Rubber-Stamped' PRC Orders Rejecting Exporter's Duty Relief Claim
Case Title : O.C. Sweaters LLP v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8336/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 504
The Delhi High Court has set aside three Policy Relaxation Committee orders rejecting O.C. Sweaters LLP's request to count two export shipments under the Advance Authorisation Scheme. The court held that the authorities mechanically rejected the case without meaningfully considering the exporter's contention that a technical glitch prevented it from availing the scheme benefit. “the orders passed by the concerned authorities are merely mechanical in nature and amount to rubber-stamping, without reflecting any independent application of mind,” the Court observed.
Mere Concealment Of Gold Not Enough To Prove Customs Duty Evasion: Delhi High Court
Case Title : UoI v. Hemant Kumar Ishwar Dass Singhvi
Case Number : CRL.A.1503/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 522
The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of smuggling gold into India, holding that mere concealment of gold was insufficient to establish fraudulent evasion of customs duty when the passenger was intercepted before he could proceed through customs clearance. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging the acquittal of a Mumbai-based passenger who was found carrying 30 gold biscuits weighing 3496.400 grams concealed in a waist belt at Delhi's IGI Airport in 1991.
Landlord Cannot Recover Service Tax From Tenant Without Express Clause In Lease: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Tannia Rikhy & Ors. v. Sunrider India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RFA 32/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 532
The Delhi High Court has on Thursday held that a landlord cannot recover service tax from a tenant in the absence of an express covenant in the lease deed imposing such liability on the tenant. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by landlords against a decree directing refund of ₹5.53 lakh deducted from the tenant's refundable security deposit towards alleged service tax dues. The dispute arose between Sunrider India Pvt Ltd and the landlords in relation to a commercial premises in the city's Vasant Vihar area, leased under an agreement dated August 28, 2006.
Delhi High Court Protects IndiGo From Coercive Action In ₹458 Crore GST Dispute
Case Title : InterGlobe Aviation Limited v. Additional Commissioner CGST South Commissionerate & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7271/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz Del HC 547
The Delhi High Court on Friday protected InterGlobe Aviation, which operates India's largest airline IndiGo, from coercive action over a ₹458.26 crore goods and services tax (GST) demand linked to compensation received from a foreign engine supplier. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul issued notice to the GST department and granted interim protection to the airline after observing that, prima facie, the amount received by IndiGo appeared to be “compensation”, and not “supply”.
Case Title : Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2341/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 553
The Delhi High Court on May 20 quashed a customs communication issued to Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. indicating differential duty liability of ₹3.20 crore, after the Customs Department stated that it would issue a show cause notice within four weeks. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul noted, “In consideration of the statement made by Mr. Naushad for issuance of a show cause notice within four weeks, we quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 12.12.2025, with no finding on impugned communication dated 14.01.2026 owing to Mr. Naushad‟s statement as recorded in our order dated 16.04.2026.”
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Maruti Enterprise v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 18080 of 2023 (Lead Matter) along with connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 61
The Gujarat High Court has on Friday upheld the constitutional validity of a GST provision that denies input tax credit to a purchaser if the supplier has not deposited the tax with the government. The court upheld the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that entitlement to input tax credit is conditional upon actual payment of tax to the government.
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhavnagar v. Officer of Deputy Conservator of Forests
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 505 of 2025 with R/Tax Appeal No. 506 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 65
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the Central Excise Department's appeals seeking to recover over ₹3.44 crore in service tax from the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests over charges collected from tourists visiting Gir Forest, holding that the officer was performing sovereign governmental functions and could not be treated as a tour operator. “The respondent - Deputy Conservator of Forest was discharging his sovereign function which cannot be brought within the purview of Service Tax and was not discharging any private function by acting as a Deputy Conservator of Forests. It is also not in dispute that the amount collected in his official capacity is a fee in a nature of compulsory levy which is ultimately is credited to the consolidated funds to the Government of Gujarat since the State Government is the authority which protects and conserves the Forests within its geographical territory.”
Case Title : Keyur Jayendrabhai Patel Through Jalpa Jayendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No. 4428 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 66
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the arrest of a person accused in a fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) racket, holding that while an arrestee must be furnished the “reasons to believe” forming the basis of arrest to enable a legal challenge, failure to provide a verbatim signed copy of the Commissioner's internal note does not vitiate the arrest. "Therefore, this Court, is of the opinion that the 'reasons to believe' recorded by the Commissioner has been furnished to the petitioner, facilitating him to challenge his arrest on the grounds as permissible and available to him in law.", the court observed.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title : Amit Engineers v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : CWP No. 3461 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)20
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has quashed a GST show cause notice issued to Amit Engineers after finding that the notice was issued despite an earlier Advance Ruling that had attained finality between the parties. A bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma observed: “in view of the finality attached to the Advance Ruling between the parties, the show cause notice dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) was without foundation. In view of the finality of the advance ruling between the parties, the notice is not sustainable and nothing is required to be adjudicated with respect to Advance Ruling and for existence Advance Ruling, Notice has to be treated as non-est. In such a situation, when fate of notice is apparent on face of record there will be no justification to relegate the petitioner to face proceeding on this count”.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
GST Audit Completion Does Not Bar Further Tax Proceedings for Unpaid Tax: J&K and Ladakh High Court
Case Title : Ess Ess Enterprises And Electronics v. Union of India And Others
Case Number : WP(C ) No. 1020/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 17
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recently held that completion of a GST audit does not prevent tax authorities from initiating further proceedings for unpaid or short-paid tax. Referring to section 65(7) of the CGST Act, the court observed, “A plain reading thereof makes it abundantly clear that where an audit conducted under sub-section (1) of Section 65 results in detection of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized, the proper officer, i.e., the STO concerned, may initiate action under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.”
Jharkhand HC
Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Entertain Writ Against Delayed GST Order, Cites Alternative Remedy
Case Title : Sujata Udit Builders Private Limited vs Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Taxes and Central Excise, Ranchi Zone, Patna
Case Number : W.P. (T) No. 2471 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR)8
The Jharkhand High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST adjudication order passed after a delay of five years, holding that the taxpayer must avail themselves of the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. A bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that where a statutory appeal is available, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition.
Karnataka HC
Consolidated GST Show Cause Notices Across Multiple Years Permissible: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors v. Chimney Hills Education Society & Ors (batch matters)
Case Number : Writ Appeal Nos. 1751/2024, 1590/2024, 7/2025, 407/2026, 495/2026, 555/2026
CITATION : Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 58
The Karnataka High Court has recently ruled that GST authorities can issue a single show cause notice covering multiple financial years, settling a dispute over whether such notices must be confined to one year. The question before the court was, “Whether it would be permissible to issue consolidated/common show cause notice under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act covering multiple financial years or multiple tax periods?” Answering this, a bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind held, “Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the reasons stated hereunder.”
Case Title : M/s ABE Security Mechanics Pvt. Ltd. v. The Superintendent of the Central Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 6841 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 66
The Karnataka High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims rejected as time-barred under Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 must be reconsidered where GST returns for the relevant financial years were filed on or before 30 November 2021, in view of the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the writ petition filed by ABE Security Mechanics Private Limited, set aside the show cause notice dated 5 December 2023 and the Order-in-Original dated 22 February 2024, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Tobacco Trader Accused Of ₹3.32 Crore Excise Duty Evasion
Case Title : Vikash Gupta v. Union of India
Case Number : MCRC No. 19184 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 36
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has recently refused bail to a tobacco trader accused of evading around ₹3.32 crore in central excise duty by allegedly concealing tobacco packing machines and illegally manufacturing tobacco products. Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta observed that the trader's claim that one of the two machines found during the search was non-functional could not, at this stage, weaken the prosecution case. “Mere oral assertion during search proceedings that the machine was not operational cannot prima facie dislodge the prosecution case at the stage of bail.”, it observed.
Madras HC
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs v. Orion Enterprises
Case Number : C.M.A.No.1327 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 124
The Madras High Court has held that an importer cannot escape penalties for misdeclaration and use of false documents merely by opting to re-export the goods after detection. "The order of re-export on payment of redemption fine will not absolve the penal consequence envisaged under the Customs Act, 1962. If this proposition of the CESTAT is to be approved, then all illegal importers, if caught, will offer to pay a paltry sum as fine in lieu of redemption of the goods and re-export the same without suffering any penalty or custom duty for their attempt to violate the Customs Act, 1962” the court said.
Orissa HC
No Fresh GST Demand For Same Amount Without Credit For Reversed ITC: Orissa HC Sets Aside Tax Demand
Case Title : M/s. Manoja Kumar Nayak v. Commissioner Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.12682 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 19
The Orissa High Court has set aside GST proceedings against an individual taxpayer, holding that once input tax credit (ITC) is reversed, the tax department cannot demand the same amount again without giving due credit for such reversal. “Once it is conceded by the Revenue that the amount of input tax credit for a sum of Rs.4,39,970/- has been reversed, raising demand to the same without giving due credit to such reversal is unethical and without authority of law. In such an event, since net tax effect would be 'zero', thereby no penalty would be imposable. This Court, therefore, would show indulgence in the matter as the Adjudicating Authority has traversed his jurisdiction by acting at his whims and fancies,” the Court said.
Patna HC
Case Title : ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5664 of 2026 connected with CWJC Nos. 5870 of 2026 and 5962 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 10
The Patna High Court has recently refused to quash multiple Central Excise show cause notices issued to ITC Limited, holding that the company could not seek quashing solely on the ground of delayed adjudication when it had not participated in hearings despite repeated opportunities. “For one reason or another, the petitioner did not participate in the hearing. In such circumstances, prima facie, we agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the Central Excise that the delay in the adjudication cannot be solely attributed to the department.”
IOCL's Terminal Facilities For Crude Oil Storage At Barauni Attract Service Tax: Patna High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Excise and Services Tax Patna v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Barauni Refinery, Begusarai, Bihar.
Case Number : Miscellaneous Appeal No. 376 of 2019.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 13
The Patna High Court has held that terminal facilities used by IOCL's Barauni Refinery for storing crude oil before onward transportation constituted an independent taxable service liable to service tax, and were not merely incidental to pipeline transportation. The court ruled, “If MOU creates a provision of a separate charge for 'discharge facility' or 'terminal facilities' or 'storing of crude oil' before entering into next phase of transportation for Bongaigaon Refinery then, it cannot be said the integral part or incidental part of pipeline transportation.”
Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court Upholds GST Penalty Order Despite Absence Of DIN, Says RFN Is Sufficient
Case Title : Mahesh Trivedi v Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5271/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 15
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a GST order communicated through statutorily recognised modes such as the GST portal, registered post or e-mail cannot be invalidated merely because it does not mention a Document Identification Number (DIN), where the communication carries a verifiable Reference Number (RFN). “Once service has been effected in any of the recognised statutory modes, we are of the view that the requirement of lawful communication clearly stands satisfied,” a division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed.
Rajasthan VAT Act Permits Search Of Residential Premises In Tax Evasion Cases: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Anil Sugar Candy Works v. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12887/2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 17
The Rajasthan High Court has recently held that the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act does not prohibit searches at residential premises, provided the statutory requirements for search and seizure are strictly fulfilled. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal referring to Section 75 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 observed, “Thus, the statute does not prohibit search of residential premises as such; however, the exercise of such power is conditioned upon strict fulfillment of the statutory requirements.”
Case Title : Balaji Exports v Union of India And Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4870/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 18
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed parallel GST proceedings and recovery action against a Jaipur-based exporter after finding prima facie that tax authorities may have initiated duplicate proceedings for the same financial year. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bipin Gupta issued notice to the department and observed that under the GST law, only one proper officer can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter.
Telangana HC
Case Title : M/s. Airan Comtrax Towers (P) Ltd. and 2 others v. The Superintendent, Additional Bench, Customs & Central Excise, Settlement Commission, Customs House, Chennai and another
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.6376 OF 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 27
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Airan Comtrax Towers Pvt. Ltd., upholding the rejection of its settlement application on the ground that it failed to make a full and true disclosure of its duty liability. A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was dealing with a challenge to the order dated February 28, 2008 passed by the Settlement Commission.
CESTAT
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹33.78 Crore Excise Demand On Sun Home Appliances Over Limitation
Case Title : Sun Home Appliances Private Limited v. Additional Director General (Adjudication)
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 51564, 50862 and 50861 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 212
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a central excise duty demand of Rs. 33.78 crore against Sun Home Appliances Private Limited. It held that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked and that statements recorded during investigation could not be relied upon without following the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (which requires that statements be tested through examination of the witness before being relied upon).
No Finding On Confiscation, No Penalty: CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Excise Penalties On Five Taxpayers
Case Title : Sanjeev Khera and Others v. Additional Director General (Adjudication)
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 51278, 51279, 51280, 51281 and 51364 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 213
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently set aside penalties imposed under Excise Rulels on five taxpayers after finding that the adjudication order did not record any finding that the goods were liable to confiscation. “There has to be a discussion and a finding that the goods are liable to confiscation. In the absence of such a finding penalties under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules could not have been imposed. This is clear from a bare perusal of rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules.". the court observed.
Additional Evidence Cannot Be Rejected Solely For Non-Filing During Adjudication: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Mukesh Kumar Soni v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Rectification of Mistake Application No. 51514 of 2025 in Customs Appeal No. 52001 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 214
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi has held that additional evidence may be permitted at the appellate stage if it is necessary to enable the Tribunal to pass orders or for sufficient cause. It said such evidence cannot be rejected solely because it was not produced during adjudication, recalling its earlier order in a gold seizure dispute.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside Non-Cooperative Finding In Anti-Dumping Investigation Against Essilor
Case Title : Essilorluxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. (Formerly known as Essilor Amera Pte Ltd.) Vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Trade Remedies
Case Number : ANTI-DUMPING APPEAL NO. 53193 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 209
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside the finding treating Essilor Group as “non-cooperative” in an anti-dumping investigation on imports of semi-finished ophthalmic lenses from China, holding that such a finding was not justified. "The recommendation made by the designated authority for imposing anti-dumping duty on Essilor Group by treating it to be non-cooperative is not justified. It is, accordingly, set aside. The designated authority shall consider the cases of the Essilor Group afresh without treating the Essilor Group as noncooperative."
CESTAT Quashes ₹10.8 Crore Customs Duty Demand, Rejects Reliance On Wikipedia, Internet Material
Case Title : United Natural Stone (100% EOU) Vs Commissioner of Customs, (Preventive), Jodhpur,
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50089 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 209
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has set aside a Rs. 10.8 crore customs duty demand and penalties against a marble importer, finding that in this case the allegation of diversion of imported marble into the domestic market was based on Wikipedia and other internet material, as well as unproven third-party statements. The tribunal noted that the department had relied on “Wikipedia and other information available on the internet” to conclude that “Harmony Brown” marble is available only in India.
Case Title : Nikon India Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 54730 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 210
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has ruled in favour of Nikon India in a customs dispute over import of digital cameras, holding that the Customs department must pay interest on Rs. 113.69 crore deposited under directions of the Supreme Court. A Bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya held that once the Supreme Court directed refund of the amount with interest, the department was bound to follow that direction and could not deny interest by applying provisions of the Customs Act.
Case Title : Commissioner, Customs-Patparganj v. Siria Impex Private Limited
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50006 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 215
Molybdenum sheets that are cut, curved and shaped for use in automobile lighting cease to be “sheets” and become finished articles, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya delivered the ruling. The tribunal allowed the department's appeals against Siria Impex Private Limited and restored the demand of differential duty along with the penalty.
CESTAT Chennai Quashes ₹2.83 Crore Service Tax Demand On IL&FS Water
Case Title : IL & FS Water Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40556/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 216
In relief to IL&FS Water Ltd., the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a Rs. 2.83 crore service tax demand, holding that an indivisible works contract cannot be split to treat the goods component as “trading” and deny input tax credit. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar was dealing with a dispute arising from a water supply project executed for the Indian Oil Corporation at Paradip under a Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) model.
Case Title : M/s. ITC Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 20313 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 217
The Bangalore Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 April held that no higher customs duty is payable on the imported “Monodisperse Aerosol Generator”, and set aside the Department's demand for differential duty along with interest and penalty. The Division Bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao was hearing ITC Limited's appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld reclassification of the product under a heading attracting higher duty.
Waste Mud From Refining Process Not Liable To Excise Duty: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s 3F Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 22096 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 218
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that “waste mud” (spent earth) generated during the refining of crude palm oil is not an excisable product under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act and is therefore not liable to Central Excise duty. A Division Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad set aside the duty demand and held that the adjudication rested on an invalid circular. The Tribunal ruled that involuntarily generated manufacturing waste cannot be treated as excisable goods merely on the ground of marketability.
No Service Tax On Non-Commercial Residential Construction: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : M/s Ashish Enterprises v. Commissioner, GST, Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70204 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 219
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 April held that service tax does not apply to construction services rendered for residential colonies not intended for commercial use. It also set aside the bulk of the demand on the ground of limitation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Ashish Enterprises against the order confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 1.67 crore along with interest and penalty for the period 2009–2014.
Case Title : The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 95 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 220
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has partly allowed an appeal filed by The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., setting aside the duty demand on diesel oil supplied to a vessel. The tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting a certificate issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) certifying the supply as duty paid, without assigning any cogent reason. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha set aside the demand of duty and interest on 49.431 MT of diesel oil supplied to vessel MT Arun Khetar Pal via Bunker Delivery Note dated March 13, 2008.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Tobacco Processing Not Manpower Supply, Allows Service Tax Refund
Case Title : Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42414 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 221
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 28 April, held that processing unmanufactured tobacco for a client constitutes agricultural job work and not manpower supply service. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the appeal filed by Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. and granted refund of service tax. It held: “The appellant processes unmanufactured tobacco for or on behalf of their client which include incidental or auxiliary services related to agriculture. These services constitute an intermediate production process in relation to agriculture or agricultural produce. Consequently, the impugned services are eligible for exemption under the law discussed above, both pre and post the Negative List.”
Sugar Syrup Used In Biscuit Manufacturing Not Marketable, No Excise Duty Payable: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s Sumo Foods Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 28086 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 222
The Hyderabad Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 4 May held that sugar syrup prepared and used captively in the manufacture of biscuits is not marketable in the form in which it emerges and is therefore not eligible for central excise duty. The Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed the appeals filed by Sumo Foods Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the demand confirmed by the Department.
Case Title : M/s. Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Belapur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85879 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 223
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 5 May upheld the demand of duty, interest and penalty against Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. for failure to reverse the Special Additional Duty (SAD) component of CENVAT credit while transferring inputs “as such” between its units, holding that the plea of revenue neutrality is not applicable in such cases. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati observed that the assessee's conduct reflected conscious non-compliance and rejected the plea of revenue neutrality.
Case Title : Marymatha Infrastructure Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 20641 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 225
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bengaluru, has set aside a Rs. 17.53 lakh excise duty demand against Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., holding that the concrete manufactured by the company near the Thanneermukkom Barrage construction site in Kerala was “concrete mix” and not “Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC)” liable to duty. Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi observed that the Revenue had failed to produce evidence showing that retarders and plasticizers typically associated with RMC production were used in the manufacturing process.
CENVAT Credit Allowed On Pollution-Control Infrastructure As Modernisation: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Surat
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 10149 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 224
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 4 May held that CENVAT Credit on civil construction and works contract services used for establishing effluent treatment infrastructure in an existing factory is admissible, since compliance with pollution-control norms is a statutory obligation and an integral part of the manufacturing process. Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha held that settled law clearly recognises services availed for fulfilling statutory environmental obligations as admissible input services and allowed the appeal filed by Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. and set aside the demand of Rs. 16,67,562, along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Bengaluru Upholds Service Tax On Employee Secondment From Foreign Parent Company
Case Title : M/s. ARM Embedded Technologies Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 900 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 226
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 April held that employees seconded by a UK-based parent company to its Indian subsidiary under a salary reimbursement arrangement would constitute “Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service” and would attract service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi partly allowed the appeal filed by ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd, and upheld the service tax demand for the normal period but set aside penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title : Teena Labs Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Medchal - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 26793 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 228
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the job work arrangement between Teena Labs Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. could not be treated as “Renting of Immovable Property Service” merely because Aurobindo Pharma exercised production and quality control and reimbursed various expenses. The tribunal observed that, “Thus, what is apparent is that there is an effective control on production process, quality control, etc., however, it cannot be said that APL has taken over the entire facility of the appellant on rent along with machinery, manpower, raw material, associate services, etc.”
Case Title : Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 50104 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 227
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Delhi has recently held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited's excise duty refund appeal as time-barred solely on the basis of the date mentioned in the appeal proforma, without examining its submissions and affidavit explaining the delay. A bench of Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal, after finding that BHEL's appeal against rejection of its refund claims for the period 2011-12 to 2017-18 upto June 30, 2017 had been dismissed as being beyond the condonable period of 90 days.
Customs Cannot Deny Interest On Refunds By Calling Applications “Incomplete”: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : PNP POLYTEX PVT LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA-III
Case Number : COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA-III
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 229
On 8 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that customs authorities cannot delay refund claims for years and later deny statutory interest by calling them “incomplete”. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati ruled that interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 becomes payable three months after the refund application is filed, even if the department later raises deficiency memos or seeks additional documents.
Case Title : R. S. Company Vs Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 51496 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 230
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside an excise duty demand and penalties against R.S. Company and its partner in a gutka clandestine removal case. It found that the Commissioner relied on photocopies of six lorry receipts, DGGI re-quantification, and a formula based on alleged scented tobacco receipts without sufficient supporting evidence. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed: “The adjudicating authority, thereafter, has simply relied on the information supplied by DGGI and determined the demand of duty without examining the evidence.”
CESTAT Bengaluru Quashes Service Tax Demand On Grants-In-Aid, Allows Earth Science Institute Appeal
Case Title : M/s National Centre for Earth Science Studies v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Thiruvananthapuram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21752 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 231
On 8 May, the Bengaluru Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that grants-in-aid received from government departments do not constitute “consideration” and therefore cannot be subjected to service tax under Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed two tax appeals (21752 and 21754 of 2015) filed by the National Centre for Earth Science Studies. It held: “.....wherever the Appellants receives grants-in-aid from Government Departments/Ministries, those grants-in-aid amounts cannot be subjected to service tax since they cannot be treated as 'consideration'.....”
CESTAT Bengaluru Exempts KILA Training Services From Service Tax Under Mega Exemption Notification
Case Title : M/s. Kerala Institute of Local Administration v. Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Kozhikode Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20928 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 232
The Bengaluru Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 8 May 2026 held that training and capacity-building services in local governance provided by the Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) are exempt from service tax. Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi held that the services fall under Serial No. 39 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST as they relate to functions entrusted to municipalities under Article 243W of the Constitution.
Case Title : Varun Beverages Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, NhavaSheva-I
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.85153 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 233
On 8 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Mandarin (Kinow) Frozen Concentrate falls under the residual entry for “juice of any other single citrus fruit” under Tariff Item 2009 3900 and not under the “orange juice” category under Tariff Item 2009 1100, thereby upholding the higher rate of customs duty. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar upheld the Revenue's classification and sustained the duty demand, while granting relief to the importer on limitation and penalty.
Case Title : Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara II
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 11178 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 234
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Ahmedabad has set aside a Rs 4.94 lakh Additional Excise Duty demand against Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. over aerated waters manufactured before the levy came into force but cleared later, holding that the department could not sustain the demand. “Since, the department has accepted the earlier orders in favour of the appellant and has not filed any appeal, therefore, now the department is prevented from taking a contrary stand today,” the tribunal held.
Case Title : M/s Madhucon Sugar & Power Industries Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 25163 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 235
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 May held that Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not permit denial of CENVAT credit on input services used for generation of electricity, since electricity is not an excisable good. Rule 6 bars CENVAT credit to the extent common inputs or input services are used for exempted goods or services. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed the appeal filed by Madhucon Sugar & Power Industries Ltd. and quashed a demand of Rs. 1.17 crore along with interest and penalty, holding that the Department's case lacked a valid legal foundation.
Case Title : Mustafa Ali v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.76228 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 236
In a ruling on the taxability of multi-level marketing (MLM) operations under the pre-GST regime, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that activities involving purchase and sale of goods under an MLM model cannot be classified as taxable “Business Auxiliary Service” under the Finance Act, 1994, where the core activity remains trading in products rather than rendering an independent service.
CESTAT Mumbai Rules Procedural Compliance In Filing Grounds Of Appeal Is Mandatory, Grants Remand
Case Title : SALINI NDT SERVICES P LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE-BELAPUR
Case Number : SERVICE TAX MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.85699 OF 2026 IN SERVICE TAX APPEAL No.86992 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 237
On 12 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that filing proper grounds of appeal along with Form ST-4 under the Finance Act, 1994 is not a mere procedural requirement but a mandatory condition for meaningful adjudication. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma however also held that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits after permitting rectification.
CESTAT Hyderabad Says Buyer's Premises Can Be 'Place of Removal', Upholds GTA Credit In FOR Sales
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal-GST v. Gloster Cables Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30453 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 238
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 May held that in FOR destination sales, where freight and insurance form part of the assessable value and the seller retains risk and ownership till delivery, the buyer's premises can qualify as the “place of removal”. Consequently, Service Tax paid on outward GTA services is eligible for CENVAT Credit. A Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad observed that the Department cannot adopt inconsistent positions by accepting excise duty on a value inclusive of freight and insurance while denying CENVAT Credit on the corresponding transportation services.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes Tax Demand Against IndiGo Holds Aircraft Generators Attract 18% IGST, Not 28%
Case Title : Interglobe Aviation Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55094 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 240
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed tax demands and penalties against InterGlobe Aviation over the classification of aircraft generators imported for use in IndiGo aircraft. It held that generators used with turboprop and turbofan gas turbine engines cannot be classified as equipment used with spark-ignition or compression-ignition internal combustion engines, meaning they attract 18% IGST under the classification claimed by InterGlobe rather than 28% IGST under the tariff entry invoked by customs.
Case Title : Dilip Dhakan v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 240 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 239
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Ahmedabad has set aside a ₹25 lakh customs penalty imposed on a Rodex International partner, holding that he could not be separately penalised once the partnership firm had already been penalised for the same contravention. It, however, reduced another penalty against him to ₹2 lakh in the same concealment case. “I hold that no separate penalty can be imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a)" of Customs Act.
CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Service Tax Demand Against Jamnalal Bajaj Institute On Student Placement Fees
Case Title : Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies v. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai South
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 86651 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 241
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 May held that educational institutions facilitating campus placements cannot attract service tax under “Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service” where employers or recruiting entities pay no consideration and institutions collect placement-related fees only from students. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi allowed the appeal filed by Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, which had imposed service tax liability on placement-related fees collected from students.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Foreign Bank Charges on Export Remittances Not Taxable Under Reverse Charge
Case Title : Lingeswara Creation v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.40056 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 242
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 May held that foreign bank charges deducted during the remittance of export proceeds do not give rise to service tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism, as no service provider–recipient relationship exists between the exporter and the foreign banks. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar, allowed the appeal filed by Lingeswara Creation and set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside ₹29.72 Lakh Demand Against Owens Corning, Bars SCN After Voluntary Payment
Case Title : M/s Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise-Raigad
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 86439 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 243
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 May set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Raigad, which had confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 29.72 lakh along with interest and equal penalty against Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. in relation to rent-a-cab services received under the reverse charge mechanism. Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati held that once the company paid the entire service tax liability along with applicable interest and intimated the department in terms of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, the department could not issue a show cause notice on the same issue.
Case Title : M/s Daya Exports v. Commissioner, CGST & Customs, Noida
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.70068 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 244
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 May held that computer cabinet cases lacking essential components such as a CPU, RAM, and hard disk cannot be treated as incomplete or unfinished computer systems merely on account of the presence of other parts like motherboards, fans, wiring, and power supply units. Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon allowed the appeal by Daya Exports and set aside confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties imposed under the Customs Act.
CESTAT Mumbai Bars Revenue From Recovering Education Cesses In Cash After MEIS Scrip Payment
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (Air Cargo Import) Vs C J Shah
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85948 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 245
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed Revenue appeals seeking to recover Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess in cash from importers. These importers had already paid the amounts using duty credit scrips issued under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS), an export incentive programme under India's Foreign Trade Policy that rewarded exporters with duty credits. “The attempt by Revenue to recover the same in cash would lead to double recovery, which is impermissible in law.”
Case Title : Champion Jointing Private Limited v. CGST & Central Excise, Surat
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 11862 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 246
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad has set aside a ₹11.12 lakh service tax demand against Champion Jointing Private Limited over performance commission and perquisites paid to its whole-time directors. Judicial Member S.S. Garg held: “The entire demand proceeds on a misconception of law, namely that any remuneration paid by a company to its directors beyond fixed monthly salary must be regarded as consideration for independent taxable service.”
CESTAT Bangalore Holds Chocolate Flavour Not A Cocoa Preparation, Quashes Customs Duty Demand
Case Title : Prova Flavours India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 20143 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 247
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 May held that the chocolate flavouring substances meant to be added to food cannot be classified as “chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa” under Customs Tariff Heading 18069090. Judicial Member Justice P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao set aside the customs duty demand, interest, and penalties against Prova Flavours India Pvt Ltd and allowed its appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore.
Senior Tax Officers Can Exercise Powers Of Subordinate Officers Under AP Sales Tax Act: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case Number : CST Appeal Nos. 01 and 02 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 248
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently held that senior tax officers can exercise powers vested in subordinate officers under the Andhra Pradesh sales tax law. The tribunal made the observation while dismissing appeals filed by Hyderabad-based refined oil and vanaspati manufacturer Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd. against a Central Sales Tax demand of Rs. 2.33 crore and a penalty of Rs. 6.43 crore.
CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Recovery Against Hindustan Copper Over 23-Year Delay and No Show Cause Notice
Case Title : M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No.85750 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 249
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 May set aside recovery proceedings against Hindustan Copper Ltd., holding that adjudication conducted nearly 23 years after the demand notice was issued was legally unsustainable and violated principles of natural justice. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma, allowed the appeal and set aside the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The Tribunal held: “The department's inaction for approximately twenty-three years is not merely a procedural lapse, it amounts to a constructive abandonment of the proceeding. Having allowed the matter to rest undisturbed for so long, the Revenue cannot be permitted to revive and complete a proceeding that causes grave and irreparable prejudice to the Appellant, whose ability to meet the demand has been fundamentally compromised by the passage of time.”
CESTAT New Delhi Holds Transfers Between Amalgamated Units Not Taxable As Related-Party Sales
Case Title : M/s RR Ispat v. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : EXCISE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.50629 OF 2023 AND 51251 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 250
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 May held that transfers of goods between amalgamated units sharing the same legal identity do not qualify as “sales” under the Central Excise law and, therefore, the related-party valuation rules do not apply. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal by R R ISPAT and held that once two units are amalgamated and operate under the same PAN and Corporate Identification Number, they no longer remain separate legal persons.
Case Title : Standard Chartered Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86325 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 251
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 May set aside a Rs. 2.73 crore service tax demand raised against Standard Chartered Finance Pvt. Ltd., holding that the show cause notice was fundamentally defective because it did not specify the exact statutory provision under which the Department sought to tax the services. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi quashed the demand along with interest and penalties, holding that the defective notice violated principles of natural justice.
Case Title : SOL Mobiles Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 87854 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 252
On 12 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the customs demands and penalties on SOL Mobiles Private Limited and its Vice-President (Finance & Accounts) Manjit Jha, holding that unlocking and activating mobile phones before export amounted only to “configuration” and not “use” under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the customs proceedings could not survive in view of the Delhi High Court's ruling in AIMS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., which the Supreme Court later left undisturbed.
Hyderabad CESTAT Upholds Rule 26 Penalty On Philips For Knowledge Of Undervalued Excisable Goods
Case Title : M/s Philips Electronics India Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Tax Medchal - GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 26858 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 253
On 14 May, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the appeal filed by Philips Electronics India Ltd. challenging the penalty imposed in connection with excisable goods manufactured by Quad Electronic Solutions Pvt Ltd. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad held that a company can be penalised under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules if it knowingly deals with goods cleared at undervalued prices that are liable for confiscation.
CESTAT Delhi Rejects Customs Case Against PU Leather Importers Over Unsealed Laptop Evidence
Case Title : Baba Leather Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 49-54 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 254
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside customs duty demands and penalties imposed on multiple importers of PU leather fabric. It held that electronic records retrieved from an unsealed laptop kept in investigators' custody could not be relied upon, as the department had failed to follow the legal procedure required to authenticate electronic evidence under the Customs Act (Section 138C). A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, also held that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon. It said the mandatory legal procedure for relying on statements recorded during the investigation had not been followed (Section 138B).
Case Title : Sharp Mint Limited v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Delhi North
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 51692 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 255
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a central excise duty demand of over Rs. 50 lakh raised against Sharp Mint Limited, holding that the department failed to prove its allegation that the company had clandestinely removed excisable goods found in its godown. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Sharp Mint Limited against a de novo adjudication order passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX, Delhi North.
Case Title : Indiamart Intermesh Ltd. v. Commissioner ofCGST & Central Excise, Delhi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54709 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 256
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi, has set aside a ₹1.53 crore service tax demand, along with interest and penalties, against Indiamart Intermesh Ltd. It held that the company's investment in and redemption of mutual fund units could not be treated as an exempt service for the purpose of denying CENVAT credit. “The mere investment in mutual fund units by the Appellant and the subsequent redemption of those units does not involve the rendering of any activity by the Appellant for any other person for consideration,” the tribunal said.
Case Title : Lemon Tree Hotel v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 22099 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 257
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld a ₹33.54 lakh service tax demand and penalties against Lemon Tree Hotel. The Tribunal found that the hotel wrongly claimed abatement benefits while availing CENVAT credit on input services linked to its restaurant and accommodation services. “We have not found any evidence to suggest that the services like Maintenance and Repair services or Internet services or Courier services were not used for providing any of these services viz., RS or AS.”, the tribunal observed.
Stock Broker's Charges For Clients' Delayed Share Payments Not Service Taxable: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Steel City Securities Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30893 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 259
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has partly allowed Steel City Securities Ltd.'s appeal against a service tax demand on delayed payment charges collected from clients, setting aside the demand relating to stock broking transactions while upholding the levy on delayed payments linked to DEMAT account services. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi held that delayed payment charges collected for late payment towards share purchases were relatable to interest on funds deployed by the broker and could not be treated as a taxable declared service.
Case Title : All Sky Marketing Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75644 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 258
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside Customs' confiscation of All Sky Marketing Pvt Ltd's All Sky, D&B and Eleprint branded shoe consignments. It held that the confiscation of those goods could not be sustained, noting that they were separately packed, were not used to conceal the infringing goods, and that the adjudicating authority had given no reasons for confiscating them.
Case Title : M/s. Krishna Kunj Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.52453 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 260
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 May held that roads constructed within Krishna Kunj Pvt. Ltd.'s “Solitaire Industrial Park-II” at Jaipur were meant for use by the general public and qualified for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed the appeal filed by Krishna Kunj and upheld denial of CENVAT credit on merits but remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for recomputation of the demand for the normal period, along with applicable interest and penalty.
Case Title : M/s GE India Industrial Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 31258 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 261
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the one-year limitation for refund claims by exporters of services runs from the date of receipt of foreign exchange remittance, and not from the end of the relevant quarter. A coram of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi was interpreting the amended refund notification applicable to service exporters from March 2016, and held, "We, therefore, find that a plain reading of notification clearly requires them to file refund claim within one year from the date of receipt of convertible foreign exchange.”
Case Title : Jasmine Biotechnologies v. Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 2352 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 263
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently set aside the reclassification of imports made by Jasmine Biotechnologies from bio-fertilisers to insecticides. It held that the Customs Department failed to establish through cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence that the products were insecticides or prohibited imports. The Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi passed the order while allowing four connected appeals filed against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad.
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Rs 33.88 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against Gurbani Constructions
Case Title : M/s Gurbani Constructions v. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Dehradun
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50121 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 262
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a service tax demand of over Rs.33 lakh against Gurbani Constructions over alleged taxable construction activities and purported additional payments from a hotel client. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that the department could not sustain the demand without evidence. “He who asserts has to prove” and if a show cause notice is issued alleging that the appellant had constructed residential complexes, “it is for the department to prove this along with evidence in the SCN.”
CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Interest On Delayed Refund Of ₹21.17 Crore Extra Duty Deposit To JSW Steel
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Vs JSW Steel Limited
Case Number : CUSTOMS STAY APPLICATION NO. 85268 OF 2018 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 85677 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 264
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Customs cannot deny interest on the delayed refund of ₹21.17 crore paid as Extra Duty Deposit merely because Bills of Entry remained pending finalisation on unrelated issues. The tribunal observed that “under no circumstances can the respondents be made liable for the delay on the part of the Department, which fact has also been taken cognizance in the impugned order by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)."
Case Title : Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Medchal - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 527 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 265
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on payments made to Russian state agency Rosoboronexport. The payments are related to the transfer of technology and technical assistance for the manufacture of SU-30 MKI aircraft in India. The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi. The tribunal partly allowed HAL's appeals against service tax demands raised by the department on the alleged import of “Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services”.
Case Title : M/s Vanesa Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD (Import), Tughlakabad, New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55715 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 266
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 May set aside customs duty demands exceeding Rs. 25 lakh against Vanesa Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. holding that customs authorities cannot invoke the extended limitation period under the Customs Act merely because they disagree with the tariff classification adopted by the importer. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed the company's appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi, and quashed the duty demand, penalties and confiscation proceedings.
CESTAT Ahmedabad Remands Customs Dispute Over Imported Goods' Classification As Thinner Or Solvent
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Mundra Customs v. Bright Petrochem India LLP
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 10139 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 269
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has remanded a customs classification dispute involving imported petrochemical products. It found that the available laboratory reports did not conclusively establish whether the goods were general-purpose paint thinners or restricted petroleum hydrocarbon solvents. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh held that fresh testing was necessary. The bench observed that “correct classification of goods cannot be determined in absence of all the relevant parameters.”
Case Title : Shri Ashok Kharey, Director v. Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 26384 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 267
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 May upheld a penalty of Rs. 20 lakh imposed on Ashok Kharey, director of Hong Kong based Maxx Access Ltd., holding that foreign nationals can be penalised under the Customs Act where their conduct has a direct nexus with customs fraud and duty evasion in India. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad dismissed Kharey's appeal, observing: "Once manipulated invoices were knowingly prepared and utilized for Customs clearance in India, the offence stood completed within Indian Territory. A person situated outside India, who consciously and deliberately participates in fraudulent importation into India, cannot seek immunity merely because of the conspiracy (acts of appellant) originated outside India".
Case Title : Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52209 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 268
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 May set aside the customs duty demand, confiscation order and penalty imposed on Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Department failed to establish that the imported goods were complete mobile phones in CKD/SKD condition. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar reiterated that imported goods can be reclassified as finished articles under Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff only if the Customs Department discharges the burden of proving that they possess the essential character of the complete goods.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes Service Tax Demand On Indian Unit Over Foreign Parent's Un-Invoiced Allocations
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Dana India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50734 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 270
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has quashed a Rs 1.88 crore service tax demand raised on an Indian subsidiary over un-invoiced allocations reflected in its foreign parent company's internal accounting system. The Tribunal found that the disputed amounts did not relate to any service rendered to the subsidiary and involved no consideration. A coram of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao dismissed appeals filed by the Revenue against Dana India Private Ltd., its Managing Director Saket Sapra, Head of Finance Sharad Jain, and General Managers (Finance) Sunil Joshi and Manoj Agarwal. It upheld an order that had dropped the tax demand and penalties.
Case Title : M/s Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Taxes & Central Excise, Gautam Budddh Nagar
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70080 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 271
On 19 May, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax under the reverse charge mechanism cannot be levied merely on the basis of payments made in foreign currency, and that the Department must first establish receipt of a taxable service. Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside service tax demands exceeding Rs 77 crore raised against Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. for the period July 2006 to June 2017.
CESTAT Delhi Holds Glucometers Are Instruments For Chemical Analysis, Not Medical Diagnostic Devices
Case Title : Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 52218 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 272
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has allowed Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the customs department's attempt to reclassify its imported diagnostic devices, including glucometers, from instruments for chemical analysis to medical diagnostic instruments. The tribunal set aside the differential duty demand and penalties. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that the issue was no longer open to debate in view of earlier Tribunal rulings and the Supreme Court's affirmation of one such decision. The bench held that Aspen had correctly classified the subject goods and rightly availed the exemption benefit.
Case Title : Aglow Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51968 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 273
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that licence fees, engineering package charges, and technical assistance payments cannot be added to the assessable value of imported equipment where they are separately contracted and are not a condition of sale. A bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed, “Law has been settled that once separate prices are provided for the supply of technical assistance, royalty etc. on one part and supply of equipment or capital goods on other part, then the consideration for the supply of technical assistance cannot be added to the assessable value in respect of import of equipment.”
Case Title : M/s Shaifali Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 214 & 215 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 278
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 May held that once Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was declared ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. v. Union of India judgment, the Department could not demand excise duty merely because the taxpayer utilised CENVAT credit during the period of default in payment of duty. Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh partly allowed the appeals and set aside the excise duty demand of Rs. 3.60 crore and the equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC. The Tribunal, however, clarified that interest liability on delayed payment of duty would survive.
CESTAT Chandigarh Holds Credit Card Cashback Incentives Not Taxable, Upholds Relief To Tek Travels
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Gurugram v. M/s Tek Travels Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60937 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 276
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 14 May held that cashback incentives received from banks on the use of commercial credit cards for airline ticket bookings do not constitute consideration for any taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and P. Technical Member Anjani Kumar upheld the Commissioner's order dropping the service tax demand of Rs. 8.03 crore raised against Tek Travels Pvt. Ltd. on cashback incentives received from banks for using commercial credit cards.
Case Title : M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Noida
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.70228 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 277
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 14 May held that concrete mix manufactured and consumed at construction sites for residential projects qualifies for exemption from central excise duty and cannot be classified as “Ready Mix Concrete” (RMC) without technical evidence establishing the characteristics of RMC manufacturing. Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon held that the Department failed to prove that Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. manufactured RMC and allowed all five appeals with consequential relief.
Case Title : A. Mariappan v. Commissioner of Customs & Connected Matters
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40309 of 2024 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 279
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 May upheld penalties against exporters, customs brokers and a customs officer in a case involving the alleged export of gold-plated copper jewellery as “22 carat gold jewellery” to fraudulently divert duty-free imported gold under an export promotion scheme. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao noted that the customs broker and its personnel facilitated examination of consignments outside the prescribed roster mechanism.
Case Title : Ratnaveer Stainless Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 11958, 11957 & 11936 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 274
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed appeals filed by Ratnaveer Stainless Products Pvt. Ltd., its director and a customs broker. The dispute concerned Countervailing Duty (CVD) liability on imports made under Advance Authorisation between September 7, 2017 and October 12, 2017. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh passed the order. Holding that the issue was “no more res-integra”, the Tribunal followed the Allahabad Bench ruling in Vishal Metal Industries and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title : Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : CST Appeal Nos. 12 & 13 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 281
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd.'s movement of goods from Maharashtra to its depots in other States for subsequent sales amounted to stock transfers and not inter-State sales liable to Central Sales Tax. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that the agreement between Kimberly Clark and Hindustan Lever Limited was merely a broad framework or standing offer, with the contract of sale arising only when specific purchase orders were placed.
CESTAT Delhi Holds GE Vernova's Imported Products Are Relays, Not Multifunctional Devices
Case Title : GE Vernova T&D India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 52421, 52730, 52732 & 52733 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 275
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that four imported products of GE Vernova T&D India Ltd., including relay products with additional monitoring, data logging and alarm features, remain classifiable as “relays.” The tribunal held that their principal function continues to be protection and control of electrical systems. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed appeals filed by GE Vernova T&D India Ltd. and three of its officials. The appeals challenged a customs order that had reclassified the imported products as Feeder Management Intelligent Electronic Devices (FMIEDs), denied exemption benefits to certain imports, and imposed duty demands and penalties.
Importer Cannot Contest Customs Reassessment After Accepting Enhanced Value: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Mahabal Impex v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51109 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 280
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has dismissed an importer's challenge to enhancement of customs value after finding that it had accepted the revised valuation, paid duty, and cleared the goods without protest. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao distinguished the Delhi High Court's ruling in Niraj Silk Mills, where the importer had consistently protested the reassessment and sought provisional clearance. “It clearly transpires from the records that the appellant unconditionally accepted the enhanced value and paid the duty and cleared the goods and it is later that a challenge was made to the enhancement of the value in the appeal.”
Case Title : Rathi Iron & Steel Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 52749 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 282
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a Rs.10 lakh penalty imposed on Rathi Iron & Steel Ind. Ltd., finding no material to show that the company had dealt with goods allegedly removed without payment of duty or had knowledge or belief that they were liable to confiscation. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held, “The appellant had not dealt with the goods that may be liable to confiscation and nor is there anything to show that the appellant had knowledge or belief that such goods were liable for confiscation.”
Case Title : RB Seth Shreeram Narsingdas v. Commissioner of Customs, Vijayawada
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 23062 of 2014
CITATION : LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 284
The Hyderabad Bench of the CESTAT has held that Customs authorities can rely on subsequently obtained documents to revisit self-assessed export shipping bills if those documents reveal wrong declarations made at the time of export. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed: “Essentially, on the issue of whether in the case of re-assessment, the department can resort to various other information, which came to their knowledge subsequently and demand differential duty, we find that they can rely on additional documents, which are relevant and also indicating wrong declaration at the time of export covered under self-assessed shipping bills.”
Exporter Can't Be Denied CENVAT Credit Solely For Lack Of Service Tax Registration: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s IVY Comptech Pvt Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. ST/26080/2013
CITATION : LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 285
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax registration is not a pre-condition for taking CENVAT credit where a taxpayer was exclusively engaged in the export of services and not liable to pay service tax. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi held a plain reading of the statutory framework did not support the department's stand that such credit could be denied solely because the taxpayer had not obtained registration.
Case Title : GX India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 51799, 51800 & 51841 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 283
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that Optical Network Terminals (ONT/ONU) and Optical Line Terminals (OLT) imported by GX India Pvt. Ltd. are machines used to receive and transmit data. It rejected the company's classification of ONT/ONU as “subscriber end equipment” and OLT under the residual “other” category. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed GX India's appeals. It remanded the company's exemption claims to the Commissioner for fresh consideration.
67% Service Tax Abatement Cannot Be Denied For Omission In ST-3 Returns: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Singh Construction Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76819 of 2016
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 286
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 May held that substantive benefit of 67% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST cannot be denied merely because the taxpayer failed to claim the benefit in its ST-3 returns, particularly when the record admitted use of materials in execution of construction services. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside the service tax demand, interest and penalty imposed on Singh Construction Corporation after finding that the taxpayer had already paid tax in excess of its actual liability upon extending the eligible abatement.
CESTAT Upholds CST Demand, ₹6.43 Crore Penalty On Kedia Vanaspathi, Rejects Consignment Sale Claim
Case Title : M/s. Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : CENTRAL SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2011
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 287
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 May 2026 upheld the tax demand and penalty against Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd., holding that a dealer seeking exemption under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 must prove, with prescribed evidence, that inter-State movement of goods arises from consignment transfers and not sales. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed the appeals and confirmed the demand after holding that the company failed to prove that the transactions were consignment transfers.
CESTAT Allahabad Says Customs Cannot Reassess Value Of Goods After Clearance For Home Consumption
Case Title : Uttam Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Noida
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.70027 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 290
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad has recently set aside a customs duty demand of over ₹10.22 crore against Uttam Steel Alloys after finding multiple flaws in the department's case, including its attempt to enhance the value of goods after they had already been cleared for home consumption. A coram of Judicial Member P K Choudhary and Technical Member P Anjani Kumar held that once goods are cleared for home consumption, they cease to retain the character of imported goods, making the Customs Valuation Rules inapplicable.
Case Title : Abhishek Exporters v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51057 of 2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 289
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi has recently held that no central excise duty could be levied on the domestic sale of marble slabs and tiles by Abhishek Exporters, a 100% export-oriented unit, after finding that cutting imported marble blocks into such products during 2002 to August 2005 did not amount to manufacture. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan partly allowed appeals filed by Abhishek Exporters and connected appellants against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur.
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹3.07 Crore Service Tax Demand, Upholds Cenvat Credit On Running Bills
Case Title : M/s. Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board v. Commissioner of Central GST Commissionerate- Udaipur
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50823 OF 2020
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 291
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a service tax demand of more than ₹3.07 crore against Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, along with interest and penalties, in a dispute over availment of Cenvat credit on running account bills and measurement books. A bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked and that credit could not be denied where receipt of services and payment of service tax were undisputed.
WhatsApp Service of SCN Not Recognised Under Central Excise Law: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Sridhar V Naidu v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54731 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 292
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on Monday held that service of a show cause notice through WhatsApp is not a legally recognised mode of service under the Central Excise Act. It set aside a service tax demand of ₹2.28 lakh raised against a person engaged in services relating to sale of advertisement space in print media, also finding that the bulk of the demand was time-barred and the balance unsustainable for want of evidence of fraud or wilful suppression.
Case Title : Unnati Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.51812 of 2025
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 293
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has recently held that the export of the pharmaceutical product in question containing 1% Ergotamine did not require prior clearance from the Narcotics Commissioner, setting aside a ₹50,000 penalty imposed on customs broker Unnati Cargo. The single-member bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta held that the product could at best be treated as a preparation of Ergotamine and not as “Ergotamine and its salts,” the category requiring prior clearance.
Case Title : Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 50853, 50854 & 50898 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 294
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a more than ₹7.18 crore demand, along with interest and penalties, raised against Hindustan Zinc Limited over electricity wheeled out from its captive power plant to sister concerns and the state distribution utility. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that the reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to such electricity amounted to non-availment of credit.
Case Title : Vikash Security Services v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51720 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 295
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has recently held that the tax department cannot sustain a service tax demand by invoking the extended limitation period solely on the basis of discrepancies between service tax returns and third-party TDS/ITR data. The tribunal held the department must independently verify whether taxable services were actually rendered before raising such a demand. It accordingly set aside a ₹7.67 lakh demand against Vikash Security Services.
Statutory CAMPA Deposits Not Consideration For Taxable Service Under Finance Act: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Service Tax, Indore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54719 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 296
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on 25 May held that mandatory Net Present Value (NPV) deposits made into the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA) for obtaining forest clearance cannot be treated as consideration for a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. and set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 7.64 crore along with interest and penalties.
Case Title : M/s Hero Honda Motors Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Faridabad
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 60153 of 2013
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 297
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 26 May held that the definition of “input service” under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has a wide ambit and includes services having even an indirect nexus with manufacturing or business activities. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed a batch of appeals filed by Hero MotoCorp Ltd (formerly Hero Honda Motors Ltd) and set aside the demand raised by the Department.
Case Title : M/s Sterling Meta-Plast India Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Customs,Airport & Air Cargo Commissionerate, Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75677 of 2020
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 298
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 26 May held that franchise fees, advertisement and promotional expenses, and corporate marketing fees paid under brand licensing arrangements for Tommy Hilfiger and French Connection eyewear are not includible in the assessable value of imported goods. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan reasoned that the expenses are not linked to the import transaction or a condition of sale under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and set aside a customs duty demand against Sterling Meta-Plast India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : M/s. M.P. Mica Enterprises Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75303 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 300
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has partly allowed an appeal by M.P. Mica Enterprises Private Limited, holding that customs authorities could not apply laboratory findings from two live consignments of imported mica to 72 past consignments without independent evidence that the earlier imports were identical. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, however, upheld the reclassification of the two live consignments under Customs Tariff Heading 6814 and the consequential differential duty demand.
Case Title : Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41355 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 299
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a customs order confiscating sanitary napkin imports worth over ₹2.12 crore. It found that the adjudicating authority failed to properly examine the importer's claim that it qualified as an MSME, along with other contentions on the applicability of BIS compliance norms. A bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that the Commissioner's order could not be sustained.
Case Title : Ravi Dhanwariya v. Commissioner of Customs Export, ICD TKD, New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51731 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 302
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a ₹3 lakh penalty imposed on a customs broker in a case relating to the alleged overvaluation of export goods by Sharp Enterprises. The tribunal held that there was nothing on record to show that he was involved in, or had knowledge of, the alleged overvaluation. A bench of Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed: “There is also nothing on record to show that the appellant had knowledge that the export goods were overvalued.”
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Order Classifying Kitchen And Household Accessories As Furniture Parts
Case Title : Inox Decor Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD Tughlakabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50541 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 301
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has set aside an order classifying imported kitchen and wardrobe storage products as furniture parts and held that they are classifiable as kitchen and household articles or furniture fittings under Chapters 73 and 83 of the Customs Tariff. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Inox Decor Pvt. Ltd. against an order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, which had classified the imported goods as furniture parts.
Case Title : RRB Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41599/2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 303
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai has set aside a ₹1.59 crore service tax demand raised against RRB Energy Ltd on payments made to overseas entities for technology transfer and wind turbine development services. The tribunal held that the department failed to establish that the transactions were taxable as Intellectual Property Service or Consulting Engineering Services. A coram of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar passed the order while allowing RRB Energy's appeal. The appeal challenged an order that had confirmed service tax demands, interest, and penalties on services received from entities based in the Netherlands and Germany.
Case Title : Simplilearn Solutions Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21314 of 2018
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 304
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), by a majority ruling, has held that when an adjudication order is received by an authorized representative of an assessee, it amounts to valid service under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the limitation period for filing an appeal begins from the date the representative receives the order. The case arose from a refund claim filed by Simplilearn Solutions Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority. When the company challenged that decision, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed its appeal on the ground that it had been filed beyond the prescribed time limit.
Case Title : Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Alwar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 51899 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 305
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has set aside a ₹22.59 lakh CENVAT credit demand, along with interest and penalty, raised against Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. over waste and scrap that arose during the manufacture of scooters, motorcycles, and their parts. A bench of Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed Honda's appeal and set aside the impugned order. The bench observed, “Waste and scrap is never manufactured by any manufacturer. It is not even a byproduct. It arises in the course of manufacture of the final product.”
CESTAT Chennai Backs Load-Port CE Certificate Over Local CE Report, Restores Declared Import Value
Case Title : Shri Hari Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41684 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 306
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside Customs authorities' enhancement of the value of imported second-hand machinery after finding that the enhancement was based on a local Chartered Engineer's certificate that did not disclose the basis for the revised valuation. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that Customs authorities had discarded the load-port Chartered Engineer's certificate relied upon by the importer and adopted the valuation contained in a local Chartered Engineer's certificate without sufficient justification.
Case Title : Punjab Advertising Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Panchkula
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 2671 of 2012
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 307
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has partly allowed a batch of appeals filed by Punjab Advertising Co. It held that rent paid for walls used to display advertisements formed part of the taxable value of the advertising services provided by it. At the same time, it held that the value of printed flex material supplied by Sonia Plastics could not be included in the value of the taxable service. The decision was delivered by a division bench of Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar.
GSTAT
GSTAT Delhi Upholds Anti-Profiteering Order Against Builder, Directs ₹63.93 Lakh Refund
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. Siddha Infradev LLP
Case Number : NAPA/138/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(DEL) 23
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi has upheld anti-profiteering proceedings against Siddha Infradev LLP and directed the builder to refund ₹63.93 lakh, along with 18% interest, to nine eligible homebuyers after finding that it failed to pass on the benefit of additional input tax credit in its Kolkata housing project. A single-member bench of Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta, ruled, “Procedural delays by a statutory authority, in the absence of any prescribed consequence for lapse of such timeline, cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive rights of consumers.”
Authority For Advance Ruling
Electric Bus Rental Services With Operators Attract 18% GST As Electricity Not 'Fuel': Gujarat AAR
Case Title : JBM Ecolife Mobility Surat P Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/13
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling has held that the rental of electric buses with operators by JBM Ecolife Mobility in Surat will attract 18% GST, ruling that electricity cannot be treated as “fuel” to claim a lower tax rate. The bench of Member (CGST) Vishal Malani and Member (SGST) Sushma Vora passed the ruling. JBM Ecolife Mobility operates 150 air-conditioned electric buses in Surat and is paid a fixed ₹59.29 per kilometre under its contract. It approached the Authority to determine whether its bus rental service would be taxed at 5%, 12% or 18% GST, specifically whether it could claim the lower rate available where the cost of fuel is included in the consideration.
Case Title : Sanjaykumar Ishwerlal Sadadiwala v. Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/14
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has recently ruled that coaching services provided by Surat-based Friends Classes to students of Standards 5 to 12 are taxable at 18% GST and do not qualify for exemption available to educational institutions. A bench of CGST Member Vishal Malani and SGST Member Sushma Vora held that the applicant did not fall within the definition of an “educational institution” under the GST exemption framework and therefore could not claim exemption from GST available to qualifying educational institutions.
Case Title : In re Unitech Engineers
Case Number : 01/ODISHA-AAR/2026-27
The Odisha Authority for Advance Ruling has recently ruled that a sub-contractor supplying Coursera user licences to the Odisha Skill Development Authority cannot claim GST exemption as an education service, ruling that its role was limited to enabling access to third-party digital content rather than imparting education. “The applicant does not conduct training and no faculty, curriculum control, or instructional responsibility lies with the applicant. The role of the applicant is limited to facilitating access to third-party educational content. Further, under the MOU dated 24.12.2023, Coursera provides rights to OSDA to access its platform and the platform hosts courses and specializations from world class universities and instructors. However, neither the Applicant nor Coursera is obligated under the MOU to deliver any Education and Training to the technical students. The courses are made available; the act of teaching is performed by thirdparty universities and instructors on Coursera's platform, not by the Applicant. Therefore, the supply cannot be classified as education service.”, it ruled.
Gujarat AAR Declines To Answer GIFT SEZ Co-Developer's GST Zero-Rating Query On SEZ Supplies
Case Title : In Re: Waystar Properties LLP
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/19
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling has declined to answer whether endorsement by the Specified Officer is mandatory for claiming zero-rated GST treatment on supplies involving Special Economic Zone entities and whether alternative documentary evidence could suffice. It held that the applicant's queries fell outside the scope of advance ruling jurisdiction. A bench of CGST Member Vishal Muni and SGST Member Subham Roy passed the ruling on an application by Waystar Properties LLP, a co-developer in Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT SEZ).
Case Title : In Re: Apar Industries Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/15
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that Apar Industries Ltd. can avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods and input services used for setting up a Continuous Catenary Vulcanization (CCV) tower at its manufacturing facility. The tower is used in the manufacture of insulated electrical cables. A bench comprising CGST Member Vishal M. Ladani and SGST Member Subham Roy passed the ruling in an application filed by Apar Industries Ltd.
Gujarat AAR Rules 'Black Mineral Water' Classifiable As Mineral Water, Taxable At 5% GST
Case Title : In Re: Oxyhydra Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/16
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) on 8 May 2026 held that “Black Mineral Water” marketed under the brand “ALVA” by Oxyhydra Beverages Pvt. Ltd. qualifies as mineral water under HSN 22011010 and attracts GST at 5%. A Bench comprising SGST Member Sushma Varma and CGST Member Vishal Malani held: “The applicant's product contains added minerals only and contains no flavouring or sweeteners & therefore the product squarely fits within the scope of HSN 22011010.”
Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling
Gujarat AAAR Upholds Denial Of ITC On Lease Rent For Industrial Land Used In Factory Construction
Case Title : M/s. Agratas Energy Storage Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2025/46
The Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST paid on lease rentals for land taken on a long-term lease for setting up a factory is blocked under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, as the provision bars credit on inputs and input services used for construction of immovable property. A Bench comprising SGST Member Arti Kanwar and CGST Member Sunil Kumar Mall dismissed the appeal by Agratas Energy Storage Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the denial of ITC on GST paid under reverse charge on lease rentals for land used for construction of factory premises.
Gujarat AAAR Confirms Geomembrane Classification As Textile Product For Technical Use
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner, Central GST v. Shree Ambica Geotex Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2026/03
The Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (GAAAR), in April 2026, upheld the classification of geomembranes under HSN 5911 as textile products for technical use, holding that the issue stood conclusively settled by the Gujarat High Court. A Bench comprising SGST Member Arti Kanwar and CGST Member Sunil Kumar Mall, upheld Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/2022/46 dated 18 October 2022, and rejected the Revenue's challenge seeking classification of the product under HSN 3926 as an article of plastic.
GSTAT
Additional ITC Benefit Must Be Passed On Even If Unutilised: GSTAT Delhi
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering v. Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/114/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 21
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi has recently observed that a GST-registered taxpayer cannot avoid passing on additional input tax credit benefits to buyers merely because the credit remains unutilised. A bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad made the observation while adjudicating anti-profiteering proceedings concerning Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Private Limited. “The mere accrual of additional ITC reduces the cost of supply, irrespective of whether such credit is utilised or remains accumulated in the electronic credit ledger. The Respondent may claim refund of unutilised ITC, if admissible under the provisions of the CGST Act and Rules; however, this does not dilute the statutory obligation to pass on the benefit of such ITC to the recipients.”
No Anti-Profiteering Violation Where Works Contract Fully Executed After GST Rollout: GSTAT Delhi
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering v. Belhekar & Kale Associates
Case Number : NAPA/237/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 22
The Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi on 5 May closed anti-profiteering proceedings against Pune-based works contractor Belhekar & Kale Associates and held that no Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit required passing on since both procurement and execution of the contract took place after the rollout of GST. Technical Member Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta accepted the investigation report of the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) and held that no contravention of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had been established. The Tribunal observed: “despite sufficient opportunities having been afforded, the Applicant neither appeared before this Tribunal nor placed any written submissions on record, which means the applicant has nothing to say on the DGAP's report.”
GSTAT Extends Relaxed GST Appeal Filing Guidelines On Portal Till December 31, 2026
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) Principal Bench, New Delhi, has extended till December 31, 2026 the relaxed filing framework for appeals on the GSTAT Portal, citing difficulties faced by appellants during the initial phase of the portal's functioning. The extension has been granted through an office order dated May 14, 2026. The order continues the earlier relaxation measures introduced through an office order dated January 20, 2026 and instructions issued on March 10, 2026.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has directed that all pending matters and future filings before its Principal Bench and State Benches must first be placed before Division Benches. The law permits matters involving tax liability or other issues valued below ₹50 lakh and not involving any question of law to be listed before a Single Bench with the approval of the President. In an office order dated May 14, 2026, GSTAT President Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra said that under Section 109(8) of the CGST Act and Rule 110A of the CGST Rules, such matters may be listed before a Single Bench with the approval of the President.
Case Title : A & T Security Services Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner Central Tax Delhi West & Ors.
Case Number : APL/1/DEL/2026
On 18 May 2026, the Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) held that where service of notices through the GST portal is rendered ineffective due to credential-related issues, additional modes of service such as registered post and speed post may be directed in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Judicial Member Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Rajiv Kapoor allowed the request of A & T Security Services Private Limited and directed that notice in the GST appeal be served through registered post, speed post, the GST portal, and email.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Centre Raises Gold, Silver Import Duty To 15% From 6% Effective Today
The Central Government has increased the effective import duty on gold and silver to 15% from 6% through a set of customs notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance, with the revised rates taking effect from May 13. The revised duty structure doubles the basic customs duty on the two precious metals to 10% from 5%, while increasing the Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess to 5% from 1%, taking the overall effective levy to 15%.
Centre Temporarily Waives Customs Duty On Cotton Imports Till October 31
The Centre on Saturday temporarily waived customs duty and Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) on cotton imports for a five-month period beginning June 1, 2026. A notification issued by the Department of Revenue said cotton falling under tariff heading 5201 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, will be exempt from the whole of the customs duty leviable under the tariff schedule as well as the whole of the AIDC.