LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: April 27 - May 03, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
5 May 2026 9:25 AM IST
HIGH COURTS
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title : Sona Enterprises v. The State
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 31510/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 34
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that merely depositing GST in the electronic ledger does not amount to payment to the Government, while setting aside a tax and penalty order against Sona Enterprises. "The provisions of Section 49(1) of the CGST Act read with Rule 87(6) & (7) of the CGST Rules makes it clear that the deposit of cash or the credit of input tax credit into the electronic ledger of the tax payer would not amount to payment of tax. Such payment of tax would occur only when the necessary amount is appropriated to the Government exchequer", the court held.
Bombay HC
GST Refund Cannot Be Rejected Without Considering Documents Already On Record: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Interactive Brokers Software Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 4543 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 236
The Bombay High Court on 16 April set aside an order rejecting a GST refund claim after finding that the authorities failed to properly consider documents submitted by the taxpayer, including the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC). A Division Bench comprising Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that when relevant documents are already placed on record, the refund claim must be examined fairly and through a reasoned order. It observed: “No prejudice would be caused to the Department if the issue is re-examined and all the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of the refund claim are duly considered.”
Bombay High Court Quashes Municipal Cess Assessment Orders Against HPCL Over 10-Year Delay
Case Title : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 637 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 239
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed municipal cess assessment orders passed by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., holding that completing proceedings more than ten years after issuing show cause notices was unreasonable and liable to be set aside. A Division Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe noted that the issue raised was already covered by its earlier ruling and that the corporation was bound by it.
Bombay High Court Allows GST Refund For Pre-July 5, 2022 Claims Under Revised Inverted Duty Formula
Case Title : CHEC-TPL Line 4 Joint Venture v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.2583 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 240
The Bombay High Court has granted a GST refund to a Joint Venture, which is executing Mumbai Metro works, holding that the revised refund formula for inverted tax structure applies even to claims filed before July 5, 2022, when the amended formula came into force. “The Petitioner will be entitled to the refund as per Section 54(3) of the CGST Act being the difference in the GST rates, due to inverted rate structure.”, the court held. Quashing rejection orders passed by GST authorities, a Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe directed the authorities to grant refunds on the petitioner's applications.
Bombay High Court Quashes GST Demand On Mumbai University, Says Affiliation Not 'Supply' Of Service
Case Title : University of Mumbai vs. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4389 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 248
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside a GST demand of Rs 16.90 crore on the University of Mumbai, holding that affiliation fees collected by the university are part of its statutory duties and not taxable. “Thus, having examined Section 7 and its purport in regard to its applicability in the context of the petitioner University receiving affiliation fee, in our opinion, there ought not to be any ambiguity that the collection of affiliation fees by the petitioner University in the discharge of its statutory functions, as noted hereinabove, can at all amount to a “supply” as defined under Section 7 of the CGST Act. As a consequence thereto, once such activity itself is not 'supply' and/or it is not business within the meaning and purview of sub-section 1(a) of Section 7, there is no question of the charging provision i.e. Section 9 which provides for levy and collection being applicable,” the Court held.
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.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Ramada Engineering Industry v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1036/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 422
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the bar on parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies only where proceedings by State and Central GST authorities relate to the same subject matter and not where they pertain to different financial years or distinct infractions. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging an order confirming tax demand under Section 74 of the CGST Act for the financial year 2018–2019.
Case Title : Nand Kishor Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5444/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 423
The Delhi High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a gold chain under the Customs Act, 1962, reiterating that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass an available statutory remedy of appeal. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed the petition filed against an order confiscating a 100-gram gold chain from the Petitioner on his return to India from Bangkok.
Case Title : Holoflex Ltd & Anr v. UoI
Case Number : LPA 314/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 430
The Delhi High Court has recently held that export incentives under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme cannot be denied solely on the ground that the exporter failed to furnish a Bill of Export (BOE), where there is otherwise sufficient evidence of supply of goods and receipt of payment. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla made the observation while dismissing a review petition filed by the Union of India challenging an earlier judgment granting EPCG benefits to Holoflex Ltd.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas Against Customs SCNs On AIFTA Benefits For Copper Imports
Case Title : Rajasthan Metals v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11126/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 431
The Delhi High Court has dismissed as premature petitions challenging show cause notices denying duty benefits under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement on copper imports from Vietnam for allegedly failing the 35% value addition requirement. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held that the petitions were not maintainable at this stage, noting that the challenge was to show cause notices which initiate adjudicatory proceedings and do not conclusively determine rights.
Delhi High Court Declines GST Refund Challenge In Writ, Says Appeal Lies Before GSTAT
Case Title : Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 19358/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 432
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging rejection of GST refund claims, holding that the petitioner must avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a plea filed by Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited assailing an appellate order that had upheld rejection of its refund claims aggregating over Rs. 4 crore under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Gujarat HC
Taxpayer Must Be Heard Even If They Opt Out Of Personal Hearing Under GST Law: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Komal Jayeshbhai Hemavat v. State Tax Officer (4) and Anr.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 6209 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 60
The Gujarat High Court recently quashed a GST demand against a registered taxpayer, holding that authorities must grant a personal hearing before passing an adverse order and cannot bypass this requirement even if the taxpayer opts out in a form. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the statutory mandate governing adjudication has to be strictly followed. The court said, “the option of no personal hearing taken by the petitioner, cannot override the effect of mandate given by the statutory provision in Section 75(4) of the GST Act.”
Jharkhand HC
Jharkhand High Court Refuses Tata Steel's Writ Against GST Demand, Says Appeal Is Proper Remedy
Case Title : M/s. Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. (T) No. 2485 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR)6
The Jharkhand High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Tata Steel Limited challenging a GST adjudication order involving alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit, holding that the company had not made out a case to bypass the statutory appellate remedy. “We are satisfied that the petitioner has not made out any case for bypassing the alternate statutory remedy of appeal.”, the court held. A Bench of Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar underscored that the High Court cannot be converted into an appellate forum in tax matters.
Case Title : Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Limited VS The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department (now State Tax Department), Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Number : W.P. (T) No. 2396 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR) 7
The Jharkhand High Court has come down heavily on the State tax department for sitting over a VAT refund of Rs.6.71 crore for years, holding that excuses such as vacant posts and officers being on election duty are “neither legal nor satisfactory.” A Division Bench of Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar directed the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, to ensure that the refund is paid with 6% annual interest by May 5, 2026, warning that any delay beyond the deadline would result in the Commissioner personally paying the additional interest from salary.
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.”
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title : Subhash Chandra Narendra Kumar Nahar and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos. 2510 of 2026 and 2532 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 29
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that a GST demand of Rs. 7.01 crore could not be sustained as it was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Anti-Evasion Bureau, Indore, who lacked jurisdiction in the absence of a GST Council-backed authorisation. A bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi set aside the order passed against a firm, Subhash Chandra Narendra Kumar Nahar. “The impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 is quashed, being an order by an incompetent authority.”
Orissa HC
Pre-2022 Iron Ore Exports Cannot Be Reassessed On DMT Basis; WMT Applies: Orissa High Court
Case Title : OCL Iron and Steels Limited Vs Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.32424 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ODI) 18
The Orissa High Court has held that iron ore exports made before the 2022 change in law must be assessed on Wet Metric Tonne (WMT) basis prevailing at the time, and cannot later be reassessed on Dry Metric Tonne (DMT) basis. The court held, “It is trite that under all taxing statutes to consider levy of tax/duty it is to be determined when exactly did the taxable event occur? It is with reference to that point of time, that the chargeability or leviability of the tax or duty, as the case may be, has to be determined. That is the crucial date.”
Telangana HC
Revenue Cannot Demand Interest On Delayed Duties Yet Deny It On Refund: Telangana High Court
Case Title : Virchow Laboratories Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise
Case Number : CEA.No. 195 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 21
The Telangana High Court recently held that the Revenue is bound to compensate a taxpayer for amounts wrongfully collected and retained as interest on alleged central excise duty liability arising from a customs notification, even where such amounts were recovered under an amnesty scheme. The court said, “the Revenue cannot act in contradicting ways, i.e., on one hand demanding interest from the assessee for the delay in payment of duties and on other hand refusing to pay interest on the amount that was wrongly collected. This would be unfair and unjust, on the part of the Department, since the delay was caused entirely by the Revenue retaining the funds and they are bound to compensate the assessee.”
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.
Tripura HC
Case Title : Sri Nimai Kar v. The State of Tripura
Case Number : WP(C) No.167 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 3
The High Court of Tripura has directed the State authorities to reimburse Rs. 2.21 crore along with 12% interest to a government contractor, holding that taxes paid under the GST regime must be refunded where the contract expressly provides for such reimbursement. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit was dealing with a writ petition filed by Sri Nimai Kar, a Class-I government contractor, who had undertaken a road construction project pursuant to a tender issued on 20.03.2017 by the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Tripura.
Uttarakhand HC
Uttarakhand High Court Strikes Down Water Tax On Hydropower, Calls It Tax On Electricity Generation
Case Title : T.H.D.C. India Ltd through its CMD v. State of Uttarakhand & Others
Case Number : SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 7
The Uttarakhand High Court has struck down a state law that required hydropower companies to pay a tax for using river water to generate electricity, holding that the levy was effectively a tax on electricity generation, which the State cannot impose. Deciding on a reference arising from an earlier split verdict, Justice Alok Kumar Verma opined: “It has been found in the earlier analysis that the Act imposes a tax on the generation of electricity. The State Legislature is not competent to levy tax on the generation of electricity. Therefore, I am in full agreement with the conclusion of brother Ravindra Maithani, J. that the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.”
CESTAT
CESTAT Mumbai Allows Release Of Seized Drone Parts, Says Separate Consignments Not Complete Drones
Case Title : IZI VS Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva-V
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 87853 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 196
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Mumbai has ordered the provisional release of seized drones and drone components, holding that Customs cannot deny release by treating separate consignments of parts as complete drones without establishing a one-to-one correlation and that the parts were capable of being reassembled into complete units. A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the Department failed to show that the imported parts corresponded to complete drones capable of being assembled.
No Service Tax On Alumni Fee Collected By University In Absence of Service: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : M/s. Manipal Education & Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissiner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20077 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 195
The Bengaluru Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 April held that no service tax can be levied on alumni fee collected by a university in the absence of any corresponding service. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the appeal filed by Manipal Education & Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd. and set aside a service tax demand exceeding Rs. 97 lakh raised by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Mangaluru.
Delay Beyond 90 Days Not Condonable Under Customs Act: CESTAT Mumbai Reiterates
Case Title : Parekh Cranes and Machinery Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 86233 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(198)
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 April, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act beyond the original 60-day limitation period and the additional condonable 30-day period. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar dismissed the appeals filed by Parekh Cranes and Machinery and its partner, and upheld the confiscation and penalty orders as barred by limitation.
CESTAT New Delhi Allows Toyota Boshoku's Appeal, Holds Seat Components As 'Parts Of Seats'
Case Title : M/s Shiroki Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50629 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(DEL) 200
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 April held that goods specifically classifiable as parts of seats cannot be reclassified under a general entry for motor vehicle parts, and accordingly allowed the appeal filed by Shiroki Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Toyota Boshoku Device India Pvt. Ltd.). A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj and held that the goods are correctly classifiable as “parts of seats” under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9401 90 00 and not under CTI 8708 99 00.
IIM Bangalore Campus Recruitment Fees Taxable As Manpower Recruitment Services: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. The Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 1538 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(BLR) 201
On 27 April 2026, the Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that recruitment fees collected by the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIMB) from corporates during campus placements are liable to service tax under the category of “manpower recruitment or supply agency services”, while participation fees are not taxable. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi partly allowed the appeal, confirming service tax only on recruitment fees for the normal period along with interest, granting cum-tax benefit, and setting aside the levy on participation fees and penalties.
Case Title : Gamco International v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Export-I
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87660 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 203
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has dismissed the appeal filed by Gamco International in a customs classification dispute involving alleged misdeclaration of imported marble slabs. It upheld confiscation, redemption fines, penalties, and denial of exemption after finding that the goods were actually limestone. The tribunal held that, in this case, there was clear misdeclaration of both the nature and quantity of the imported goods. It said the customs action was justified on that basis.
Gold Chains In Running Lengths Are Jewellery, Not Semi-Manufactured Gold: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : M/s. Ram Aabhoshan v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 21961 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(BLR) 203
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Bengaluru has recently held that gold chains imported in running lengths are to be treated as articles of jewellery and not as semi-manufactured gold, ruling that minor processes like cutting and attaching hooks do not alter their essential character. A coram of Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao said the goods had already taken the form of finished jewellery.
CESTAT Chennai Orders Refund Of Excise Duty On Revised Price Not Accepted By Buyer
Case Title : Woory Automotive India Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41551 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(CHE) 204
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that excise duty paid on a higher price claimed through supplementary invoices cannot be sustained where the buyer never accepted that price. “The contemporaneous letter dated 13.07.2015 issued by the buyer clearly establishes that the supplementary invoice was not accepted, the amount was not accounted in the books and no CENVAT credit was availed. Thus, the revised value never crystallized into a transaction value within the meaning of Section 4. Consequently, the duty paid on such notional and unrealized value cannot be sustained,” the court observed.
State VAT Exemption Cannot Override SAD Liability On Imports: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s.Enterprise International Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41779 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(CHE) 205
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 April dismissed an appeal filed by Enterprise International Ltd., holding that exemption from VAT in Uttar Pradesh cannot be used to avoid payment of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported silk fabrics. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao examined whether SAD liability can be avoided on the basis of a state-level VAT exemption and whether a demand can be raised when assessment is claimed to be provisional.
Procedure Cannot Defeat Substantive Justice: CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Appeal Rejection Over Delay
Case Title : HARSHAD KESHAV PARAB VS COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE-MUMBAI CENTRAL
Case Number : SERVICE TAXAPPEAL NO.85334OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 197
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai has set aside an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that had rejected a taxpayer's appeal solely because no application for condonation of delay was filed along with it, even though the delay was only 23 days. The tribunal held that procedural requirements cannot be applied in a manner that defeats substantive justice. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma observed, "It is a settled principle that procedural requirements, including limitation, should not be applied in a manner that defeats substantive justice, particularly when the delay is marginal and satisfactorily explained. In the present case, the delay is only of 23 days, and the appellant has expressed willingness to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay if an opportunity is granted."
Case Title : Mysore Race Club Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 23205 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 206
Service tax demand on services provided by a club to its own members under “Club or Association Services” cannot be sustained, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has held, while ruling that Mysore Race Club Ltd. remains liable for service tax on restaurant services, event-related income, and sponsorship activities. The bench of Judicial Member D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of West Bengal v. Calcutta Club Ltd. to hold that the demand under “Club or Association Services” was not sustainable.
Case Title : G-Mobile Devices Pvt. Ltd. VS Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), New Delhi
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50651 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 207
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi on Wednesday held that Bluetooth earphones remain earphones for customs classification and do not become data transmission devices merely because they use wireless connectivity. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that the primary function of such devices is sound output, which makes them earphones. “Bluetooth Wireless Earphones are, objectively and physically, earphones. They produce sound in or near the ears of the user. The Bluetooth/Wireless connectivity is a technology by which audio signal reaches the device. It does not transform an earphone into a “data transmission machine” for classification purposes".
CESTAT Mumbai Rules Importer Entitled To DEPB Benefit Despite Subsequent Cancellation Of Scrips
Case Title : Saguna Poultry Farm Ltd. (Presently known as M/s Saguna Foods Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 86694 OF 20162
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM)199
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that Saguna Poultry Farm Ltd. cannot be denied duty exemption on imports made using DEPB scrips that were valid at the time of use, even if those scrips were cancelled later. DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) scrips are transferable licences issued to exporters that can be used to pay customs duty on imports. “The scrips were valid when they were utilized by the appellant. Subsequent cancellation would have no impact.”
Case Title : Deep Traders v. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra and Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 10762 of 2020 and 10995 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 211
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Ahmedabad has set aside confiscation and penalties imposed on Deep Traders, Gujarat, holding that its import of technical-grade urea through a State Trading Enterprise on a high sea sales basis did not violate the Foreign Trade Policy. In a high-seas sales transaction, the State Trading Enterprise imports the goods and sells them to an Indian buyer while the shipment is still at sea, with the buyer completing customs clearance. A coram of Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh said the issue was “no more res-integra” and followed earlier tribunal decisions to allow the appeals filed by Deep Traders.
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) 208
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.
GSTAT
GSTAT Transfers Marvel Vinyls Appeal To Ghaziabad Bench, Orders Seamless Digital Handover
Case Title : M/s Marvel Vinyls Limited v. Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Meerut & Ors.
Case Number : APL/9/PB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 20
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 20 April 2026 laid down that registry systems must ensure seamless tracking of appeals transferred between Benches by maintaining spreadsheets and e-registers, with periodic reviews to prevent cases from being “lost in transit”. A Bench of President Justice (Retd.) Dr Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta directed transfer of the appeal filed by Marvel Vinyls Limited to the Ghaziabad State GSTAT Bench after holding that it did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Principal Bench.
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.”