Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: February 23 - March 01, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
2 March 2026 12:41 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX . & ORS. VS VIKARAM CEMENT
Case Number : Civil Appeal No(s). 710/2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 82
Holding that the Centre's 2024 litigation policy applies even to pending appeals, the Supreme Court on February 5, 2026 dismissed appeals filed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax against Vikaram Cement, ruling that the Rs. 25.47 lakh tax demand involved fell well below the Rs. 2 crore monetary limit fixed under the June 26, 2024 circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
Rejecting the State's contention that the circular would not apply to appeals already filed under the repealed Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale observed: “A plain reading of the above condition of the circular would make it explicitly clear that even in respect of pending appeals relating to CGST, SGST/UTGST, IGST and Compensation Cess, the monetary limit fixed would be applicable.”
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) Vs Inter Globe Aviation Limited Etc
Case Number : Diary No. 58086/2025 In Civil Appeal Nos. 7744-9457/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 83
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed review petitions filed by the Customs Department against its earlier judgment affirming relief granted to InterGlobe Aviation Limited, which operates IndiGo, in a dispute concerning the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on re-import of aircraft and parts sent abroad for repairs. A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan condoned the delay but declined to interfere with its earlier decision.
Voluntary Statements To Customs Officers Can Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court
Case Title : Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1232-1237 OF 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 88
The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, constitute substantive evidence and can sustain a conviction if shown to be voluntary. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta reaffirmed the Gujarat High Court's judgment holding that, “Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by duly authorized Customs Officers are admissible in evidence and do not attract the bar contained in Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided they are made voluntarily.”
Case Title : HAMDARD (WAKF) LABORATORIES VS COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, U.P. COMMERCIAL
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2557-2578 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 90
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that “Sharbat Rooh Afza” manufactured by Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories is classifiable as a “fruit drink / processed fruit product” under Entry 103 of Schedule II Part A of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, and not under the residuary entry taxable at 12.5%. A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed the appeals and set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgments dated July 2, 2018 and August 3, 2022, which had upheld taxing the product under the residuary entry.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
“Access To Justice Cannot Be Held Hostage To Technology”: Allahabad High Court On Filing GST Appeals
Case Title : M/S. Ennbee Living Llp v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1235 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 16
The Allahabad High Court on 20 February addressed difficulties faced by taxpayers in filing appeals under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 due to technological barriers in the online system. A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a case filed by Ennbee Living LLP, pertaining to the generation of a temporary id to file appeal under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Bombay HC
Bombay High Court Quashes ₹133.60 Crore GST Penalty Each On Shemaroo Executives
Case Title : Amit Manilal Haria & Ors Vs The Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise. & Anr
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5001 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 92
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed penalties of Rs.133.60 crore each imposed on the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Officer and Joint Managing Director of Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd., holding that the statutory requirements necessary to fasten personal GST liability were not satisfied. The Court found that the penalty provision invoked by the department could not be applied in the absence of proof that the officers had retained the benefit of the impugned transactions and that the transactions were conducted at their instance.
Case Title : Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 18259 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 96
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday set aside a stamp duty demand of over Rs. 1 crore raised against Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., holding that the authorities erred by adding the cost of constructing a Permanent Transit Camp (PTC) while recalculating the market value in a slum redevelopment project. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan found that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) acted arbitrarily in enhancing the market value by including the PTC construction cost and also ruled that revision proceedings under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act must be completed within six years.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹32 Crore GST Demand On Pidilite For Non-Supply Of Verification Reports
Case Title : Pidilite Industries Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.2054 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court on 20 February set aside a GST demand exceeding Rs. 32 crore against Pidilite, holding that non-furnishing of verification reports relied upon in adjudication amounted to a clear breach of natural justice. The Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe quashed the Order-in-Original and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Bench observed: “Non furnishing of verification reports and no opportunity of a fair hearing on the same, in our opinion, certainly amounted to breach of the principles of natural justice, as behind the back of the Petitioner, no opinion could have been formed and expressed in the impugned order without the Petitioner being granted an opportunity to deal with the verification reports.”
Bombay High Court Reaffirms Year-Wise Assessment In GST, Limits Scope of Section 74 Notices
Case Title : Rainbow Greeners Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.7945/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 99
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) recently, quashed a show cause notice issued against Rainbow Greeners Nagpur, under Section 74 of the CGST Act on the ground that it unlawfully clubbed five financial years in a single composite proceeding. A Division Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta wrote: “In the light of the statutory scheme, we find that there is no scope for consolidating various financial years/tax period which is attempted by the impugned Show Cause Notices assailed in the Petition.”
GST Appellate Tribunal Can Grant Interim Relief, Including Stay On Recovery: Bombay High Court
Case Title : The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 4698 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 103
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the GST Appellate Tribunal possesses inherent and incidental powers to grant interim relief. This includes protection against recovery pending disposal of appeals. The Court said that any interpretation to the contrary would render the appellate remedy “illusory” and defeat legislative intent. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. The bank had challenged recovery intimations and a Recovery Notice dated February 6, 2026 issued while its appeal was pending before the Tribunal.
Bombay High Court Upholds CESTAT Relief To KEC International In ₹4.42 Crore Excise Matter
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise & ST CGST, Daman, Vapi v. KEC International Ltd.
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No 9 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 101
The Bombay High Court on 4 February dismissed a Central Excise Appeal filed by the Revenue against KEC International Ltd., holding that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granting exemption benefits to the assessee. A Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, while hearing the appeal, held that the Tribunal had examined the material on record and concluded that there was substantial compliance with the exemption notifications; therefore, no interference was warranted.
Case Title : Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 102
Observing that extension of tax incentives granted to Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited involves a policy decision requiring inter-ministerial dialogue, the Bombay High Court has directed the Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, and other concerned authorities to take a decision on the company's pending representation within two months. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited, which operates the “Imagicaa” theme park and “Aquamagica” water park at Khalapur in Raigad district. The project had been recognised as a “Mega Project” under the State's Tourism Policy 2006.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Maheshwar Flooring Industries Limited v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2286/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 183
The Delhi High Court has recently held that an exporter cannot block the entry or processing of a return shipment merely by disowning the consignment, and that once the importer/exporter refuses to clear the goods, the statutory consequences under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 must follow. For context, Section 48 provides the procedure to be followed where the goods are not cleared, warehoused, or transshipped within thirty days from the date of unloading.
Non-Declaration Of Gold At Green Channel Not Always Smuggling: Delhi High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Customs v. Ms. Shabnam Parveen
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2417/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 191
The Delhi High Court has recently held that in a case of non-declaration of gold at the Green Channel which does not amount to smuggling, absolute confiscation may be disproportionate and redemption on payment of fine may be permitted. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “The release is permitted only upon payment of redemption fine and penalty, along with applicable duty. The orders under challenge therefore do not condone the violation and instead calibrate the consequence.”
Gauhati HC
GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Based On Investigative Dictation Alone: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Ankit Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/875/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 5
The Gauhati High Court on 17 February, held that cancellation of GST registration cannot be sustained when it is based on vague allegations and issued at the behest of the investigating wing, without independent application of mind by the proper officer. A Bench of Justice Arun Dev Choudhury allowed a writ petition was filed by Ankit Choudhary, sole proprietor of Ankit Enterprises, challenging a show cause notice, the subsequent order cancelling his GST registration, and the order rejecting his application for revocation of cancellation.
Gujarat HC
Re-Export Option Lapses If Redemption Fine Paid After 120 Days: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Goodwill Industries vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 13305 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 19
The Gujarat High Court on 6 February, held that the 120-day timeline for payment of redemption fine under Section 125(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is mandatory, and failure to pay within this period renders the re-export option void. A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed the writ petition filed by Goodwill Industries, while directing the refund of Rs. 12 lakh redemption fine and retaining the Rs. 8 lakh penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Classification Of 'Mint Orange 2022' As Industrial Input Under VAT Act
Case Title : State of Gujarat Through The Commissioner of Commercial Tax vs. Gujarat Flavours Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2022 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 In R/Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 21
The Gujarat High Court has held that 'Mint Orange 2022' is classifiable as an industrial input under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, clarifying that household use does not prevent a product from being treated as an industrial input when its composition and primary use are industrial in nature. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed the Tax Appeal filed by the Commercial Tax Department, holding that the product qualifies as an aromatic chemical and compound under Entry 226 of Schedule II, covered by Entry 42A relating to industrial inputs.
Order Passed In Fraud Proceedings Cannot Be Reclassified To Avail Amnesty Scheme: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : R B Pandey And Sons vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central CGST and Central Excise Division
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 8054 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 21
The Gujarat High Court held that an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 involving allegations of fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts cannot be converted into a non-fraud order under Section 73 merely to enable the taxpayer to claim relief under the GST Amnesty Scheme, in the absence of documentary evidence disproving such allegations. A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, by its order dated 13 February 2026, rejected the plea of R.B. Pandey and Sons, the taxpayer, who sought conversion of a GST demand of Rs. 79,34,968 from Section 74 to Section 73 of the CGST Act, and upheld the demand after finding that the taxpayer had failed to produce invoices, returns or other supporting records.
Case Title : Ashland India Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 12738 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 23
The Gujarat High Court has restored over Rs.1.29 Crore rebate claim of a merchant exporter, holding that the absence of original ARE-1 forms cannot defeat a rebate claim when export and duty payment are otherwise verifiable. ARE-1 stands for Application for Removal of Excisable Goods for Export. It was a statutory export document under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It recorded details of manufacture, duty payment, and export. Under Rule 18, the original copy was ordinarily required to be filed along with a rebate claim.
Case Title : Balkrishna Industries Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 1903 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 24
The Gujarat High Court has ordered refund of Rs. 18,00,140 collected as penalty from Balkrishna Industries Limited, holding that imposition of penalty merely because an e-way bill expired during transit was unsustainable in the facts of the case. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that “In wake of such undisputed fact, the imposition of harsh penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was uncalled for and is also beyond the scope of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.”
Kerala HC
Case Title : Pinnacle Motor Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 21609 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 31
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that a bona fide mistake committed by a taxpayer while filing revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms cannot justify denial of transitional Input Tax Credit, especially in the absence of any allegation of tax evasion. TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 are statutory forms under Section 140 of the CGST Act through which taxpayers carried forward eligible input tax credit from the pre-GST regime into GST.
Case Title : Yaser Arafat. K v The Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number : Crl. RP 162/ 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 33
The Kerala High Court has refused to discharge one of the accused in a CBI corruption case, holding that in the present case, statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, along with other materials constitute sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed to trial. “Thus, in the instant case, prima facie, there are materials to proceed with trial of the revision petitioner/accused No.3. No doubt, the evidentiary value of approvers and how far the same to be believed and acted upon, and similarly how far the extra judicial confession and how far the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are matters to be decided after trial,” Justice A. Badharudeen observed.
Madras HC
Duty-Free Import Benefits Denied Over Unauthorised Diversion, Poor Record-Keeping: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs v. Shri Regin.P
Case Number : C.M.A(MD)Nos.571, 572, 573 & 574 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 47
The Madras High Court on 10 February, held that duty-free import benefits under the Advance Authorisation Scheme can be denied when the importer diverts the goods into the domestic market without authorisation. A Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima allowed the Department's appeals, arising from a batch of civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Department) against the proprietor of Regin Agency, and Regin Exports.
Case Title : Virbac Animal Health India Pvt., Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number : WP No. 27739 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 56
The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that differential customs duty voluntarily paid during a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation cannot be claimed as a refund. The Court further held that Notification No. 25/2019-Customs amended the applicable customs duty rate by treating shrimp larvae feed in both pellet and non-pellet form as attracting 5% basic customs duty. The notification cannot be applied retrospectively to imports made prior to its issuance.
CESTAT
No Service Tax Payable On Overseas Film Shooting Expenses Under Reverse Charge: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75875 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 79
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently allowed the appeal filed by Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd., holding that no service tax is payable under the reverse charge mechanism on expenses incurred in foreign currency for the shooting of films and allied activities carried outside India. The bench, consisting of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, observed that the department had raised the demand merely on the basis of figures reflected in the balance sheet under the head "expenditure in foreign currency" without identifying or classifying the specific taxable service.
Case Title : Airport Authority of India Vs Commissioner of CGST- Delhi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.52465 Of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 80
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on 18 February, held that Service Tax is not leviable on Route Navigation Facility Charges (RNFC) collected by the Airports Authority of India (AAI), as such services are not rendered entirely within the airport or civil enclave, as required under Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994. A Division Bench Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya was hearing AAI's appeal against confirmation of service tax demand on RNFC, Terminal Navigation Landing Charges (TNLC) and certain miscellaneous income.
Allegations Of Clandestine Removal Cannot Rely On Unauthenticated Evidence: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s. Umashankar Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41116 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 81
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained in the absence of legally admissible electronic evidence and a complete chain of corroborative material. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao on 4 February 4, allowed the appeals filed by the Umashankar Alloys Pvt. Ltd., its Managing Director and Manager, and quashed the duty demand of Rs. 2.79 crore, along with equal penalty and consequential personal penalties.
Incorrect Tariff Classification Not Enough To Invoke Extended Limitation Or Penalty: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s iValue Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50629 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 82
On 23 February, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi held that mere misclassification of imported goods in a Bill of Entry cannot automatically lead to invocation of the extended period of limitation, confiscation of goods, or imposition of penalty in the absence of intent to evade duty. A Bench comprising the President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao, partly allowed the appeal by iValue Infosolutions Private Limited, and set aside the demand raised for the extended period, along with confiscation, redemption fine and penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Value Enhancement Based Solely On DRI Alert In Fabric Import Case
Case Title : Kumar Mahendra Exim Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86769 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 83
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February set aside the enhancement of value of imported knitted fabrics, holding that customs authorities cannot reject the declared transaction value solely on the basis of a DRI Alert and NIDB data without following the procedure prescribed under law. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban, was hearing an appeal filed by Kumar Mahendra Exim against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld the re-determination of the value of the imported goods.
No Service Tax On Exempt Road, Canal Works Based Solely On TDS Deduction: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : Shailja Construction v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Agra
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70031 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 84
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 February held that mere deduction of TDS and reflection of receipts in Form 26AS cannot determine service tax liability when the underlying activity, i.e., construction of roads and canals for Government authorities, is expressly exempt under the Mega Exemption Notification. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary allowed an appeal by Shailja Construction, noting that the entire demand had been raised mechanically on the basis of Form 26AS entries and TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, without examining the actual nature of the services rendered.
Case Title : Price Water House Coopers Service Delivery Centre (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75239 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 85
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed in a case that CENVAT credit/refund could not have been denied where receipt of services and payment of service tax were undisputed. The bench consists of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, decided a batch of service tax appeals filed by Price Waterhouse Coopers Service Delivery Centre (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd., challenging the denial of CENVAT credit and refund on multiple grounds mostly technical irregularities.
Shifting Materials Within Factory Not Taxable As “Cargo Handling Service”: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Eastern Transport Agency v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70245 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 86
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 February, held that shifting and transportation of materials within factory premises does not fall under the category of "Cargo Handling Service" and therefore no service tax is payable on such activity. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal filed by Eastern Transport Agency (taxpayer) against an order passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 1.28 crore, along with interest and penalties, for the period October 2006 to March 2011.
Service Tax Leviable On Infrastructure Support To TCS, Educational Training Exempt: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76030 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 87
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 February, confirmed service tax liability on infrastructure and allied facilities provided to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) under “Business Support Service”, while setting aside the entire demand for training and educational activities under “Management or Business Consultancy Service”. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, decided the appeal filed by Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) (appellant), a charitable educational institution registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, against a service tax demand of Rs. 2.38 crore confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar.
Customs House Agent Services To Foreign Clients Are Export, Service Tax Not Payable: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Ceva Freight India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax-II
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75990 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 88
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February held that Customs House Agent (CHA) services rendered by an international freight forwarder to overseas customers constitute “export of service” and are not liable to service tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan heard cross appeals arising from an order passed against Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd (taxpayer), an international freight forwarder engaged in the transportation of cargo for inbound and outbound shipments.
Case Title : T T Limited v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Meerut
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.70574 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 89
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that, in the facts of the case, an amount paid under protest during investigation, before any adjudication or confirmed demand, cannot be treated as “duty” but only as a deposit. It ruled that interest on such a refund is payable at 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund. The order was passed by Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary while allowing the appeal filed by T T Limited, a 100% export-oriented unit engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn. The dispute concerned interest on the refund of Additional Duty of Excise (Textiles & Textile Articles).
Housekeeping, Manpower Services Eligible For CENVAT Credit Post-2011: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Cetex Petrochemical Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 40527 to 40529 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 90
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 23 February held that CENVAT credit on services such as housekeeping, gardening, pest control, manpower supply, and business membership cannot be denied merely due to the post-2011 amendment, so long as the services have a clear connection with manufacturing or business activity. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao was hearing an appeal filed by Cetax Petrochemicals Ltd., a manufacturer of petrochemical products, against the partial denial of CENVAT credit for the period March 2014 to March 2015.
Second-Hand Digital Multifunction Machines Imported Pre-2012 Not Confiscable: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Jaya Trading Company v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41557 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 91
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February held that second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines imported before June 2012 were freely importable and not liable to confiscation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao were hearing an appeal by Jaya Trading Company. The members examined whether the rejection of the importer's appeal on limitation was legally sustainable and whether second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines imported prior to 5 June 2012 could be treated as restricted goods, thereby justifying confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Customs Act.
Bought-Out Optional Plywood Tops Value Not Includible In Excise Duty on Folding Cots: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Shree Durga Industry v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 76598 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 92
In partial relief to Shree Durga Industry, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that while fabrication of steel folding cots amounts to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, the value of optional plywood tops procured from the open market cannot be added to the assessable value for levy of excise duty. The bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing appeals filed by Shree Durga Industry and its partner Goldi Sethi against an order confirming a demand of Rs 3,32,10,665 in excise duty along with interest and penalties for the period 2011–12 to 2014–15 (up to May 2015).
Ready Rotis Classifiable as Bread, Not Ready-To-Eat Food; CESTAT Grants Nil Excise Duty
Case Title : Ready Roti India Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Alwar
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50670 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 93
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that “Ready Roti/Halka Fulka” manufactured by Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd. is classifiable as bread and not as packaged or instant food, and is therefore chargeable to a nil rate of excise duty. The bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao was dealing with an appeal against an order upholding excise duty demand, interest and penalty on the allegation that the appellant was manufacturing ready-to-eat packaged food without registration or payment of duty.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes ₹1.81 Crore Service Tax Demand on CII For Overseas Exhibitions
Case Title : Confederation of Indian Industry v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50606 Of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 94
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that fees collected by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) from its members for facilitating participation in overseas business exhibitions are not liable to service tax under the category of “Business Exhibition Service”. The bench consists of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, was hearing an appeal filed by Confederation of Indian Industry (appellant) against an order confirming a service tax demand of over Rs. 1.81 crore along with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Quashes Rs 3.47 Crore Duty Demand On Myntra Jabong, Says No Wilful Suppression
Case Title : Myntra Jabong India Pvt Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (imports)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55846 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 95
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on Friday set aside a Rs 3.47 crore customs duty demand against Myntra Jabong India Pvt Ltd, holding that the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked in a classification dispute. Allowing the appeal, The Tribunal noted that the company had deposited the entire differential duty along with interest before issuance of the show cause notice and that its failure to mention the zipper length in the imported jackets did not amount to wilful suppression with intent to evade duty.
Case Title : Gayatri Engineering v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : EXCISE Appeal No. 11170 of 2019-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 96
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that MS frame parts, gland plates and MS tanks manufactured as per buyer-specific drawings for use in transformers cannot be treated as general articles of iron and steel. The Tribunal set aside the demand for differential excise duty of Rs.3.69 lakhs raised against Gayatri Engineering, along with interest and penalty.
Service Tax Is Leviable On Repair Services Provided To Kolkata Metro: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s. PPS International v. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51505 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 96
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 26 February, held that repair and maintenance services rendered to the Kolkata Metro Railway are not eligible for tax exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, focussed on whether such services could be treated as exempt railway-related works and whether the Department was justified in invoking the extended period to confirm the service tax demand.
No Excise Duty On Dolochar Generated During Sponge Iron Production: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Kaushal Ferro Metals (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.75666 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 98
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that 'dolochar' generated during the manufacture of sponge iron is an inevitable waste and not a manufactured excisable product. Therefore no central excise duty is payable on its clearance. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal filed by Kaushal Ferro Metals (P) Ltd., challenging the confirmation of excise duty along with interest and equal penalty imposed on the sale of dolochar.
No Bar On CENVAT Credit Where Supplementary Invoice Is Not Linked To Suppression: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Agrasen Sponge Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr., CGST & CX, Rourkela Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.75703 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 99
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 February, allowed an appeal by Agrasen Sponge Pvt. Ltd., holding that CENVAT credit claimed on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) is admissible where the additional duty arose due to an interpretational dispute and not on account of suppression or fraud. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar, which had upheld the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 23.36 lakh availed by the appellant during April 2016 to March 2017.
GSTAT
GSTAT Delhi Orders Panchsheel Buildtech To Return ₹98 Lakh To Homebuyers In Anti-Profiteering Case
Case Title : DGAP vs. Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/59/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 9
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 20 February upheld an anti-profiteering charge against Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and directed it to return Rs. 98 lakh to homebuyers of its three Noida-based residential projects. Technical Member A. Venu Prasad found the company liable for profiteering for non-passing of the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to homebuyers as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal held that Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 applies and a penalty of 10 percent of the profiteered amount would be leviable if repayment was delayed beyond 20 March 2026.