LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: July 06 - July 12, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
13 July 2026 7:38 PM IST
HIGH COURTS
Andhra Pradesh HC
AP High Court Sets Aside VAT Orders On ISRO's Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Flags National Interest
Case Title : Satish Dhawan Space Centre Shar v. The State of AP
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 6971/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 44
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 22 June set aside VAT assessment orders passed against Satish Dhawan Space Centre SHAR, a unit of the Indian Space Research Organisation, holding that an improper tax burden on an institution engaged in critical space programmes could adversely affect national interest. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T. C. D. Sekhar allowed the writ petition, set aside the assessment orders, and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity to the Space Centre.
Bombay HC
Case Title : Neon Laboratories v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, PAL-VAT-E-005, Palghar & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 21301 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 390
The Bombay High Court has directed the Sub-Registrar to register an auction purchaser's sale certificate without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the Sales Tax Department after finding that the secured creditor's claim took priority over the Department's tax dues. A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat granted the relief to Neon Laboratories, which had purchased the property in an auction conducted by a bank under the SARFAESI Act.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Amit Ranjan & Ors. v. Union Of India And Others
Case Number : LPA 393/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 677
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the taxation of Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) under the Finance Act, 2022 does not make cryptocurrency exchanges "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution or, by itself, subject them to public law scrutiny. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia thus dismissed an appeal filed by users of cryptocurrency exchange platform BitBNS, seeking CBI or SIT probe into the alleged withdrawal restrictions.
Case Title : Navalai Enterprises v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General)
Case Number : CUSAA 14/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 685
The Delhi High Court has held that an Authorised Courier whose licence has been revoked under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010 can maintain a statutory appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, even after availing the remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner under the Regulations. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain set aside a CESTAT order that had dismissed the courier's appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the 2010 Regulations provided only a remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner.
Delhi High Court Refuses Higher Interest On Service Tax Refund Beyond Statutory 6% Rate
Case Title : Seher v. Commissioner Of Central Excise & Cgst, Delhi East
Case Number : SERTA 21/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 686
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking enhancement of interest from 6% to 12% per annum on the refund of a service tax deposit made during investigation, holding that once the statute prescribes the rate of interest payable, courts cannot award a higher rate in the absence of any challenge to the statutory provision or the notification issued thereunder. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain upheld a CESTAT order granting interest at 6% per annum under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Notification No. 24/2014-C.E. (N.T.).
GST Order Need Not Elaborately Deal With Every Submission In Taxpayer's Reply: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Sunil Chauhan Prop Of Shree Chem India v. The Principal Commisisoner Of Cgst Delhi North & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8412/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 690
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a GST adjudicating authority does not elaborately deal with every submission made by an assessee in reply to a show cause notice (SCN), the same cannot lead to a conclusion that the representation was not considered. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain observed that while Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 obligates the proper officer to consider the noticee's representation before determining tax, interest and penalty, the adequacy of reasons recorded by the adjudicating authority and the correctness of its findings are matters that ordinarily fall within the domain of the appellate authority.
Gujarat HC
Belated Allegation Of Coercion Cannot Justify GST Refund After Voluntary Payment: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Hirenkumar Valjibhai Sankhalava v. Office of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 8399 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)85
The Gujarat High Court on 25 June held that a taxpayer cannot claim a refund of GST, interest and penalty voluntarily paid during search proceedings by alleging coercion nearly two years later, ruling that the belated allegation was merely an afterthought to secure a refund and that the delayed issuance of Form GST DRC-04 acknowledging the voluntary payment did not invalidate the proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by the proprietor of Alpha-1 Tuition Classes and Hostel challenging the rejection of his refund claim of Rs. 1.96 crore under Section 54 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Gujarat HC Holds PLA Payment Cannot Result In Double Recovery, Directs ₹3.74 Cr. Credit Restoration
Case Title : Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India Through Secretary & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 1996 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)86
The Gujarat High Court on 24 June held that the Central Excise Department cannot require a taxpayer to claim a cash refund after the taxpayer has already deposited the disputed duty amount through the Personal Ledger Account (PLA), as the corresponding CENVAT credit must be restored to prevent double recovery. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed the writ petition filed by Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd. and directed the Department to re-credit Rs. 3,74,33,462 to the company's electronic credit ledger within six weeks, observing that the Department had wrongly treated the request as one seeking suo motu re-credit when the company was only seeking restoration of credit after depositing the equivalent amount in cash.
Karnataka HC
GST Reimbursement Tied To Contractual Terms, Cannot Override Statutory Scheme: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : The State of Karnataka v. Yogisha R
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 1951 OF 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 105
The Karnataka High Court on 25 June held that disputes concerning reimbursement of additional GST liability arise out of contractual arrangements between contractors and employers and cannot be used to alter or override the statutory framework governing GST levy, assessment and recovery. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K. modified a Single Judge's order that had directed reimbursement of GST amounts to a contractor, which was passed relying on Sri Chandrashekaraiah and Others v. The State of Karnataka.
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash DGGI Criminal Proceedings In Alleged Fake ITC Case
Case Title : Shri Mohammed Kamran v. The Senior Intelligence Officer
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.38771 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 107
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Mysuru scrap dealer accused of allegedly fraudulently availing and passing fake Input Tax Credit (ITC). It rejected his contention that the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) could not investigate the case because the State GST authorities had already initiated action. Justice M. Nagaprasanna relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate. The court observed that, after the complaint was received, the State GST authorities transferred their pending investigation to the Central GST authorities.
Case Title : Sri M R Kodandaram v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 1518 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 109
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the application of a uniform property tax slab to Five-Star Hotels under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Property Tax Rules, ruling that such hotels constitute a distinct and uniform class irrespective of where they are located in Bengaluru. A Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by M.R. Kodandaram, owner of Gokula Grand Hotel & Spa, challenging a Single Judge's refusal to interfere with a BBMP circular, demand notice, and the uniform property tax applicable to Five-Star Hotels.
Kerala HC
Case Title : The Commercial Tax Officer v. Escapade Reports Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : WA NO. 177 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 126
The Kerala High Court has recently reiterated that interest under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act cannot be demanded for any period before the statutory provision enabling such recovery came into force on April 1, 2009. It dismissed the State's appeal, following its earlier ruling in Casino Hotel v. State of Kerala, which had already settled the issue. The Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act imposes a tax on charges collected for specified luxury accommodation and services.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title : Sonali Soya Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 20081 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 50
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 30 June upheld the orders of commercial tax authorities imposing Central Sales Tax on interstate sales of soya flour, holding that the product does not qualify as exempt “atta” under the relevant exemption notification. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed the writ petition filed by Sonali Soya Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and affirmed the tax demand raised against the petitioners.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Holds ITC Claim Based On Fabricated Agreement Invalid, Upholds GST Demand
Case Title : Phoenix Marketing Solution v. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Case Number : WP Nos. 18739 & 18116 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 168
The Madras High Court on 30 June held that input tax credit (ITC) cannot be claimed on the basis of a fabricated contractual arrangement, where the agreement and supporting invoices do not establish a genuine business transaction. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed two writ petitions filed by a proprietorship challenging GST assessment orders for financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24, thereby upholding the demand of tax, interest and penalty confirmed under Section 74 of the GST enactments (relating to tax not paid or short paid due to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts).
Meghalaya HC
Meghalaya HC Declines Writ Relief In ₹112 Crore BOT Annuity GST Case, Holds Appeal Is Proper Remedy
Case Title : M/s Jorabat Shillong Expressway Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 245 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 4
The Meghalaya High Court has held that disputes involving GST classification, interpretation of exemption notifications and taxability of transactions should ordinarily be decided through the statutory appellate mechanism under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and not through writ proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices H.S. Thangkhiew and B. Bhattacharjee dismissed a writ petition filed by Jorabat Shillong Expressway Limited, holding that the company had failed to establish any exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : Sanjay Verma v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax
Case Number : CEA-3-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 34
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 2 July held that the one year period prescribed under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 for passing adjudication orders in cases involving the extended period of limitation is not mandatory in all circumstances and cannot be invoked by a taxpayer whose own conduct caused delay in the proceedings. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor dismissed the appeal filed by Sanjay Verma, an architect and upheld the orders passed by the adjudicating authority, appellate authority and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), holding that the delay was caused due to the appellant's failure to respond to notices and not due to any administrative inaction.
Telangana HC
Rent For Furniture In Commercial Lease Not Taxable As Deemed Sale: Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s SDE Engineers Limited and Others v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others
Case Number : W.P. Nos. 9991, 3865 & 3866 of 2009 and T.R.E.V.C. No. 52 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 43
The Telangana High Court on 3 July held that rent received from leasing commercial buildings along with furniture, fixtures and other amenities cannot be taxed as a transfer of the right to use goods under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (APVAT Act) or the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (APGST Act), where the transaction is essentially one of renting immovable property and no exclusive right over the goods is transferred to the tenant. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao allowed a batch of writ petitions and a tax revision case filed by SDE Engineers Ltd. and other developers, setting aside tax demands raised under Section 4(8) of the APVAT Act and Section 5E of the APGST Act, which levy tax on the transfer of the right to use goods.
Tripura HC
Case Title : Sri Shekhar Chandra Podder v. The Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 285 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 4
The Tripura High Court on 30 June held that Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) authorities cannot initiate adjudication proceedings on issues that have already been taken up by State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) authorities on the same subject matter. A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit quashed a challenge to a demand cum show cause notice dated 22 July 2024 and an Order in Original dated 3 February 2025 issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The provision deals with recovery of tax not paid or short paid due to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
CESTAT
Case Title : M/s Noor Jewel Impex & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & A.C.C.), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 75921
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 406
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench, has held that duty-free gold imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme cannot be confiscated merely because it was sent to job workers who were not initially listed as supporting manufacturers. The tribunal held that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had later regularized their inclusion and that there was no evidence the gold had been diverted to unauthorised entities in violation of the Actual User condition.
Case Title : Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 86063 & 86064 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 407
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. correctly valued prototype commercial vehicles cleared to its own unit for testing on the basis of comparable goods and not at 110% of their cost of production. The tribunal held that the valuation method under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, which applies where goods are used in the manufacture of another article, was not attracted on the facts of the case.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand On Crompton Greaves, Rules Type Test Charges Not Taxable
Case Title : Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Transformer Division) v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85138 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 408
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a Central Excise duty demand against Crompton Greaves Ltd., holding that charges recovered separately for conducting "type tests" on transformers at the request of customers cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Transformer Division).
Case Title : Olam Information Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42443-42444 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 409
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that services such as rent-a-cab, air travel, hotel accommodation, restaurant, telecommunication, insurance and business support services qualify as input services where they are used directly or indirectly for providing output services and are not meant for employees' personal consumption. The tribunal accordingly allowed a refund of unutilised CENVAT credit claimed by Olam Information Services Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Chennai Rejects Reclassification Of Nikrothal Wire To Stainless Steel Wire CTH
Case Title : M/s. Alleima India Private Limited (Formerly Sandvik Materials Technology India Pvt. Ltd.) v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40582 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 411
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 July held that the Customs Department cannot reclassify imported Nikrothal wire from Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 75052200 (Nickel Alloy Wire) to CTH 72230091 (Stainless Steel Wire) when the issue has already been decided in the importer's own case and there is no change in facts or law. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed an appeal filed by Alleima India Private Limited against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld the Department's reclassification of the goods based on laboratory test results showing high nickel and chromium content.
Timing Difference In Availment Of CENVAT Credit Not A Ground To Deny Export Refund: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Andritz Technologies Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41236–41239 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 410
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 July, held that refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on export of services cannot be denied merely on the ground that input service credit was availed after the date of the last export invoice of the relevant quarter, so long as the credit is otherwise admissible and remains unutilised. Technical Member Rajeev Tandon allowed all four appeals filed by Andritz Technologies Private Limited and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that the denial of refund on a timing basis under Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) was unsustainable.
CESTAT Chandigarh Quashes ₹55 Lakh Excise Duty Demand Over Pre-1991 Duty Collections
Case Title : Kamal Steel Fabricators v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 54518 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 412
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an excise duty demand of ₹55 lakh against Kamal Steel Fabricators. It held that Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, which requires manufacturers to deposit with the Government excise duty collected from buyers, could not be invoked for amounts collected before the provision came into force. The tribunal observed, “Any statutory provision unless expressly stated cannot be applied retrospectively. We find that in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the amendment is retrospective.”
Case Title : M/s Shokeen Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Noida & Anr.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 70641 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 413
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside a customs order confiscating gold jewellery and bullion. It held that the panchnama forming the foundation of the case was unreliable because the Department failed to substantiate it by examining the panch witnesses. A bench of Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that the Revenue's case also rested on statements that had been retracted at the first available opportunity while the makers were in judicial custody. It observed that the Revenue neither rebutted those retractions nor examined the makers of the statements during adjudication.
Case Title : Sree Annapoorna Sree Gowrishankar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41368 & 41369 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 414
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a service tax demand of ₹2.32 crore against a Coimbatore-based restaurant chain. It held that the chain was not liable to pay service tax on food and beverages served in the physically demarcated non-air-conditioned sections of its establishments. A tribunal comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeals filed by Sree Annapoorna Sree Gowrishankar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. It also set aside the interest and penalty imposed on the company.
Separately Sold Study Material And Student Fee Waivers Not Taxable To Service Tax: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s FIIT JEE Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Audit-II, Delhi Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50722 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 415
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 July held that coaching institutes do not have to pay Service Tax on the value of study material sold separately or on scholarships and fee concessions granted to students. Service Tax applies only to the coaching fee actually collected from students and not to amounts that the institute never charged or recovered. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed an appeal filed by FIIT JEE Limited and set aside the Service Tax demand raised on the value of course material supplied to students and scholarships and fee waivers granted by the institute.
No Service Tax On Reimbursement Of Actual Electricity Charges Recovered From Tenants: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Valmet Technologies Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42435 & 42436 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 416
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that reimbursement of actual electricity charges recovered from tenants is not liable to service tax, observing that electricity is "goods" and such recoveries cannot be treated as consideration for a taxable service. The tribunal observed, “Further, eelectricity is specifically recognized as "goods" under the Central Excise Tariff Act and various State VAT laws. Hence reimbursements or collections of actual electricity charges as per the unit of consumption, from tenants cannot be recogonised as a consideration for a service rendered.”
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Customs Duty Demand After Royalty Was Added To Import Value
Case Title : Valeo Friction Materials India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41620 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 417
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a customs duty demand that arose after royalty payments were added to the transaction value of imported raw materials. The tribunal followed its earlier ruling in the same company's case after finding that the Revenue had not shown any change in facts, produced any new document, or established any change in law to justify taking a different view.
Department Cannot Selectively Recalculate Service Tax On Works Contract Invoices: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : M/s. M. N. Associates v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21454 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 419
The Bengaluru Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 July held that the Department cannot selectively compute differential service tax on works contract services by accepting taxpayer's valuation methodology for some invoices while rejecting it for others. Judicial Member P. A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed two appeals and partly allowed another appeal filed by M.N. Associates challenging differential service tax demands raised by the Department.
Volvo Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Royalty Paid For Technical Know-How: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Volvo Buses (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20137 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 418
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Bangalore has ruled that Volvo Buses (India) Pvt. Ltd. is not liable to pay service tax on royalty paid to its Swedish parent company for technical know-how under a Technical License Contract Agreement. The tribunal held that there was no material to show the royalty was paid towards any intellectual property right recognised under Indian law.
Imported Aluminium Panels Used In Mivan Formwork Not 'Moulds' For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax v. M/s. Puravankara Projects Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.20871 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 420
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 July held that aluminium panels imported for use in Mivan formwork cannot be treated as “moulds” for availing Cenvat credit merely because they are assembled into mould-like structures after import. Judicial Member P. A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue against an order granting Cenvat credit to Puravankara Projects Ltd., noting that the goods must be assessed based on their identity and classification at the time of import.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹6.25 Lakh Service Tax Demand Based Solely On Annual Income Tax Statement
Case Title : Shri Bhalang Singh Phanbuh v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Shillong
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76611 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 421
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹6.25 lakh raised against an assessee after finding that the Department issued a show cause notice solely on the basis of Form 26AS (an income tax statement reflecting tax deducted at source and certain specified financial transactions) without carrying out any independent verification or investigation. The tribunal ultimately quashed the demand on the ground of limitation.
Case Title : M/s DK Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70196 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 422
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently upheld a service tax demand of ₹5.22 lakh, along with interest and penalties, against DK Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. It held that the company was not entitled to claim exemption meant for services provided to educational institutions because its services were rendered to commercial entities. A single-member bench of Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava dismissed the company's appeal.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows KSB's Concessional Duty Claim For Boiler Feed Pumps Classified As Water Pumps
Case Title : KSB Limited (Formerly M/s KSB Pumps Limited) v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Pune-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 85625 of 2022 & 85631 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 425
On 8 July, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that boiler feed pumps and condensate extraction pumps primarily designed to handle water are eligible for concessional excise duty under Serial No. 235 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that such pumps are classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item (CETI) 84137010 and not under CETI 84137095 as claimed by the Department and allowed the appeals filed by KSB Limited.
CESTAT Mumbai Holds Investment Advice To Overseas Client Is Export, Allows Tata Realty Refund
Case Title : M/s Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85404 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM)425
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 July held that investment advisory services provided by an Indian company to an overseas client qualify as export of service, even if the advice relates to investment opportunities in India. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal filed by Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. and held that the company was entitled to refund of accumulated CENVAT credit as the services were provided to a foreign recipient and consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Broker Licence Revocation For Lack Of Independent Findings
Case Title : Merchant & Sons v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87668 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 423
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the revocation of a Customs Broker's licence. It found that the customs department failed to establish that the broker had breached its obligations while handling exports that were later alleged to have been overvalued to claim higher duty drawback. A tribunal comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the licensing authority had failed to independently examine the allegations before revoking the licence.
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Navi Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86647 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 427
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has imposed ₹50,000 as compensatory litigation costs on the Department after observing that proceedings over the refund of a mandatory pre-deposit of ₹33,373 appeared to have been unnecessarily initiated and were meant to harass a genuine taxpayer. The tribunal directed the Department to refund the pre-deposit along with statutory interest. A single-member tribunal of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' order directing refund of the pre-deposit with interest.
Case Title : Hindustan Newsprint Employees Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.21220 OF 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 426
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has granted relief to Hindustan Newsprint Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd. in a service tax matter. It observed that reimbursed employee wages and other employment-related benefits cannot be included in the taxable value for service tax under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service for the period prior to 14 May 2015.
CESTAT Ahmedabad Says Director's Position Alone Cannot Attract Customs Penalty Quashes ₹1 Cr Levy
Case Title : Shri Altaf Ahmed v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Case Number : CUSTOMS Appeal No. 11552 of 2025-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 428
On 9 July, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a company director cannot be penalised under the Customs Act, 1962 merely because of his position in the company unless the Department proves his active involvement in the alleged offence. Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh allowed the appeal filed by Global Enterprises' director Altaf Ahmed and set aside the Rs. 1 crore penalty imposed on him.
Adjudicating Authorities Cannot Modify Final Orders After Appeal Period Expires: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Wacker Metroark Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 75305 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 429
On 8 July, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that an adjudicating authority cannot modify a rebate sanction order after the time limit to challenge the order in appeal has expired as the authority becomes functus officio after passing the order. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar dismissed the appeal filed by Wacker Metroark Chemical Pvt. Ltd. against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which had rejected the company's request for cash payment of the balance rebate amount.
Case Title : Hexagon Capability Centre India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30218 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 430
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 July held that unutilised Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education (SHE) Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) lying in the CENVAT credit account as on 30 June 2017 cannot be refunded under Section 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar dismissed the appeal filed by Hexagon Capability Centre India Private Limited against the rejection of its refund claim of Rs. 22.11 lakh towards accumulated Education Cess, SHE Cess and KKC.
Case Title : Itishree Devi v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75446 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 431
Observing that the revenue had "officially but illegally" usurped more than half of an employee's annual income, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, directed the department to pay 6% annual interest on the amount collected from her. The tribunal held that the interest would run from the date the amount was collected until the date it was refunded. A coram of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar observed, "The severity of such a demand is beyond imagination when it is made on a person earning about Rs.6 lacs per annum [Avg for the four years], during this period. More than 50% of her annual income has been simply usurped by the Revenue officially but illegally."
Case Title : India Cements Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati-GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30049 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 432
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an importer cannot be compelled to avail a particular exemption notification where more than one option is available. It ruled that the importer is free to choose the notification that is most beneficial. Applying this principle, the tribunal held that India Cements Ltd. was entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of the Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid at the concessional rate of one per cent/two per cent on imported steam coal.
Case Title : M/s A to Z Security Company And Other Services v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Kanpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70614 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 434
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹49.70 lakh against a job work service provider. It held that activities such as repacking old bottles, repackaging glass bottles, barcode sticking, and bottle cleaning carried out for liquor manufacturers constituted exempt intermediate production processes under Entry 30(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST.
CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Excise Demand On Unmachined Castings Used In Wind Turbines
Case Title : Pitti Castings Pvt Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy – GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 26314 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 435
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an excise duty demand against a manufacturer of unmachined castings. It held that castings specially designed and supplied for use in Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEGs) are eligible for excise exemption, even if they require further machining before assembly. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that Notification No. 6/2006-CE applies to goods falling under any chapter and found that the appellant's tailor-made un-machined castings qualified for the exemption.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹50 Lakh Penalty Against Individual In Silk Necktie Export Drawback Case
Case Title : Shri Anupam Mondal v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75730 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 433
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside two penalties of ₹25 lakh each imposed on an individual accused of assisting in a fraudulent silk necktie export drawback scheme. It found that the individual had helped the main accused obtain a driving licence illegally in a fake name, which was later used to open a bank account. However, the bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar held that while this act was illegal and could expose the individual to criminal proceedings, it alone could not establish his involvement in the alleged overvaluation of export goods or fraudulent duty drawback claims in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Case Title : V I S A Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30407 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 436
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the appeal filed by V I S A Steel Ltd., holding that imported quicklime is classifiable as lime under the Customs Tariff and not under the tariff entry applicable to chemically defined compounds. The tribunal set aside a differential customs duty demand of ₹26.60 lakh, along with the interest and penalty. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed: “There is no dispute on the fact that the imported goods in the present case are 'quicklime' and thus by applying GIR1 it would be classifiable under tariff item 25221000.”
Authority For Advance Ruling
Gujarat AAR Rules Paper Bags Attract 5% GST, Not 18%
Case Title : In Re: Canpac Trends Private Limited
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/24
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that paper bags manufactured from paper or paperboard are liable to GST at 5% under the entry covering paper sacks, paper bags and biodegradable bags, and not under the competing 18% entry applicable to certain goods falling under the same tariff heading. Holding that the concessional entry was introduced to encourage environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic bags, the Authority observed, "The very purpose of the Government in inserting this entry appears to be to promote the production of paper sacks/bags and bio-degradable bags which are eco-friendly and environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic bags."
GSTAT
Case Title : Dow Chemical International Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax, Mazgaon, Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : APL/2/PB/2026 to APL/7/PB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (MUM) 26
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, has held that procurement services received by Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. from its Switzerland-based group entity were imports of services and not intermediary services, making them liable to Goods and Services Tax in India. A division bench of President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta dismissed the company's appeals against the rejection of refund claims exceeding ₹13.41 crore of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid under the reverse charge mechanism.