LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: July 27 - August 02, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
4 Aug 2026 7:39 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 23931/2026 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 250
The Supreme Court has recently upheld the Gujarat High Court's judgment sustaining the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In doing so, it affirmed that a registered purchaser cannot claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) unless the supplier has actually paid the tax charged on the underlying supply to the government. Upholding the High Court's judgment, the court observed, "High Court was fully justified in holding that no grounds were made out to declare Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act as unconstitutional or read down the provisions thereof. We find ourselves in complete and respectful agreement with the views expressed by the High Court of Gujarat and affirm and uphold the impugned judgment."
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : Sanchit Seth v. Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise And 3 Others
Case Number : HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 861 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 55
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the arrest, remand and detention of a man taken into custody under the Health Security Se National Security Cess Act, 2025, holding that the arrest could not be sustained when the written authorisation to arrest him was issued by the Commissioner only a day after he had been picked up. The HSNS Cess Act imposes a monthly cess on manufacturers of specified goods to fund national security and public health.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes GST Detention Over Expired E-Way Bill After Vehicle Breakdown
Case Title : Slv Elite Spaces Llp and Others v. The State Of Ap and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 10030 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 46
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 16 July held that GST authorities cannot invoke detention proceedings merely because an e-way bill had expired when the delay in delivery of goods was caused by a vehicle breakdown and there was no evidence of tax evasion. A Division Bench of Justices Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar allowed the writ petition filed by SLV Elite Spaces LLP and directed the GST authorities to drop further proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the GST Act (which provides for detention, seizure, and release of goods and vehicles in certain cases).
Delhi HC
Mandatory 7.5% Customs Appeal Pre-Deposit Cannot Be Waived Or Reduced: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Amar Singh And Sons Tree Nuts LLP v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs And Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9384/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 741
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be waived or reduced, as the Act contains no provision permitting such reduction. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain passed the order while disposing of four writ petitions filed by importers challenging orders passed by the customs authorities and seeking waiver or reduction of the mandatory pre-deposit for maintaining their appeals before the CESTAT.
Delhi High Court Asks VAT Officer To Decide Voltas' ₹1.79 Crore Refund Claim Within Two Weeks
Case Title : Voltas Limited v. Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10085/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 743
The Delhi High Court has recently disposed of a writ petition filed by Voltas Limited seeking a VAT refund of ₹1.79 crore pertaining to the first quarter of the financial year 2017-18, after the Delhi government assured the Court that the company's representation would be decided within two weeks. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing Voltas' plea seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Trade and Taxes to refund ₹1,79,07,807.
CGST Act Has No Provision To Exempt Mandatory Pre-Deposit For Appeal: Delhi High Court
Case Title : DS Farbication v. The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Others
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9962/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 744
The Delhi High Court has recently held that there is no provision under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, to exempt an assessee from the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing a statutory appeal. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain thus declined to entertain a trader's writ petition challenging cancellation of a GST registration. According to the petitioner, its GST registration had been cancelled on the allegation that the firm was non-existent and had wrongly availed input tax credit (ITC) amounting to ₹49,89,902. Before passing the impugned order, the authorities had issued a show cause notice, but no reply was submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner also did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing.
Delhi High Court Declines Writ Against Ex Parte GST Order, Cites Statutory Appeal
Case Title : SKG Metal Trading Through Its Partner v. The Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3895/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 755
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging an ex parte GST adjudication order. It observed that disputed questions of fact relating to the validity and sufficiency of service of notices under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are more appropriately examined by the statutory appellate authority. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan was hearing a challenge to an order that imposed a penalty of over ₹2.39 crore on the petitioner for the alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit.
Case Title : DK Enterprises Through Proprietor, Deepak Mittal v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10993/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 756
The Delhi High Court has held that the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 is empowered to conduct such further inquiry as may be necessary while deciding an appeal and, in an appropriate case, can permit cross-examination of witnesses, notwithstanding the statutory bar on remanding matters to the adjudicating authority. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while refusing to entertain a writ petition challenging GST demand of approximately ₹64 crore on the ground that Petitioner had been denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during the adjudication proceedings.
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Central Tax, Cgst Delhi East v. Samiah International Builder Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : CEAC 5/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 760
The Delhi High Court has held that an appeal against a CESTAT order determining the taxability of a particular service is not maintainable before the High Court and must instead be filed before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain relied on Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Delhi South v. M/s Spicejet Ltd., SERTA 2/2024 to conclude, “where the CESTAT determines the taxability of a particular service, an appeal against such determination would lie before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.”, the court ruled.
Case Title : Safelogic Freight Agency LLC v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 19725/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 765
The Delhi High Court recently observed that a dispute between the Customs Department and the Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) over the release of a shipping container appeared to be "driven more on account of ego than on any question of law," after the container remained stranded for more than three years. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain made the observation while hearing a plea filed by Ukraine-based freight forwarding company, seeking release of its container lying at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad.
Case Title : Lalitendra Gulani v. Director General, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10075/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 766
The Delhi High Court has observed that advocates should be summoned only in "rare and exceptional circumstances" after disposing of a plea challenging a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) summons issued to a lawyer who had rendered a legal opinion to a client. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan disposed of the petition after recording the DRI's submission that the impugned summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 had already been withdrawn.
New 10% GST Appeal Pre-Deposit Not Applicable If SCN Issued Before October 1, 2025: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-Ii) Cgst Delhi Zone & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8414/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 770
The Delhi High Court has held that the amended provision requiring a 10% pre-deposit of the penalty for filing appeals against penalty-only orders under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be applied to adjudicatory proceedings that were initiated before the amendment came into force on October 1, 2025. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain held that the petitioners' right to appeal vested when the show cause notice (SCN) was issued on June 25, 2025, and therefore the subsequent amendment introducing the 10% pre-deposit requirement could not be imposed on them.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Case Title : Mohd Hazzak Lohar & Anr. v. Commissioner State Tax & Ors
Case Number : WP(C) No. 2434/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(J&K) 22
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High court has held that the seven-day timeline prescribed under Section 129(3) of the Jammu & Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for passing a penalty order is mandatory. It ruled that a penalty order passed even a day beyond the statutory period cannot be sustained. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani observed that where the legislature has used the word "shall" while prescribing timelines for the exercise of coercive powers, the requirement must be strictly complied with. It added that fiscal statutes must be be construed strictly.
Karnataka HC
Karnataka High Court Rules Secret Commission Claims Need Evidence, Upholds ₹53.48 Lakh Disallowance
Case Title : Shri Rampur Arvind v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.676 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 131
The Karnataka High Court on 9 July held that a taxpayer cannot claim deduction for alleged secret commission payments as business promotion expenditure without proving the claim through adequate evidence, and upheld the disallowance of Rs. 53.48 lakh claimed as a business deduction. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.M. Manmadha Rao dismissed Rampur Arvind's (taxpayer) appeal and upheld the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : M/s BSR Infratech India Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.182 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 132
The Karnataka High Court on 8 July held that a contractee cannot retain a contractor's security deposit indefinitely to recover an alleged VAT-related loss unless it proves a contractual breach, actual loss suffered, and its right under the contract to recover the amount. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha allowed the appeal filed by BSR Infratech India, set aside the Commercial Court's judgment upholding Indian Oil Corporation's deduction, and directed refund of the withheld security deposit of Rs. 36.64 lakh with 9% annual interest from 31 October 2018.
Kerala HC
Absence Of Audit Not A Ground To Reject KVAT Return Revision: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Bhima Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 14377 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 143
The Kerala High Court on 15 July held that a taxpayer's request to revise returns under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act cannot be rejected solely because its accounts were not audited under Section 42 of the Act. A Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon allowed the petition filed by Bhima Enterprises, holding: “A reading of the aforesaid order would show that it pertains to the transportation of certain gold jewellery allegedly not supported by the documents required under the statute. In my opinion, this cannot constitute a valid ground for rejecting the petitioner's request for revision of the return, for the reasons already noticed.”
Director Must Prove He Was Not Responsible For Company's Unpaid VAT: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Commercial Tax Officer v. Vardhanan P.R
Case Number : WA NO. 1253 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 144
The Kerala High Court has recently held that when tax authorities seek to recover a company's tax dues from one of its directors under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, the burden is on the director to prove that the non-recovery was not caused by his negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty. ",,as per Section 39 of the KVAT Act, the onus to prove that the non-recovery was not on account of negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty attributable to the Director, is on the said person and not the Revenue. " a Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji observed while partly allowing the State's appeal against a Single Judge's order.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title : RELIANCE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 12775 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 57
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently ruled that stamp duty on the assignment of loans to an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) under the state government's March 7, 2005 Notification must be calculated at 0.1% of the loan securitised or debt assigned and not on the market value of the mortgaged property. Holding that the notification links stamp duty to the loan securitised or debt assigned rather than the value of the secured property, Justice Maninder S. Bhatti observed, "A perusal of the Notification clearly reflects that the said Notification nowhere speaks about the immovable property or value thereof. The Stamp duty as per the provisions of the Notification dated 07-03-2005 is not charged considering the value of the land which is mortgaged in order to secure the land. On the contrary, the percentage of duty is quantified qua loan securitized or debt assigned. Hence, the market value of the property is not a consideration for the purposes of assessment of 0.1% of Stamp Duty for the purposes of the transaction where a loan is securitized or debt assigned to a reconstruction or a securitization company."
Madras HC
Madras High Court Upholds ₹2.66 Cr GST Recovery Against Former Director Of CBIGS Advertising
Case Title : CBIGS Apparels and Jewels v. The Joint Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.Nos. 3204 & 16529 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 200
The Madras High Court on 7 July held that tax dues of a private company in liquidation can be recovered from its former director under Section 88(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, unless the director proves that the non-recovery was not due to gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty. Justice C. Saravanan dismissed three connected writ petitions filed by CBIGS Apparels and Jewels, its partner Mrs. N. Seetha, and Yantur Manufacturing Private Limited challenging GST recovery proceedings initiated for the tax dues of CBIGS Advertising Private Limited, a company that had gone into voluntary liquidation.
Madras High Court Upholds 14.5% VAT On Vestige's Food Supplements, Rejects Ayurvedic Medicine Claim
Case Title : M/s. Vestige Marketing Private Limited v. The Union Territory of Puducherry
Case Number : T.C.(R). No.48 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 201
The Madras High Court on 24 July held that products purchased and sold as food supplements cannot later be classified as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines merely to claim a concessional rate of Value Added Tax (VAT). A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed the tax revision filed by Vestige Marketing Private Limited and upheld the levy of 14.5% VAT on the products, holding that the company had purchased the goods as food supplements under the Central Sales Tax (CST) regime and could not subsequently change their classification to Ayurvedic medicines to claim the lower tax rate of 5% under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act.
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s.Computer Graphics Limited
Case Number : CMA No. 507 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 204
The Madras High Court on 23 July held that CENVAT credit cannot be claimed on additional customs duty adjusted through DEPB scrips for imports made before 31 August 2004, as such credit was available only where the duty was paid in cash. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed the Revenue's appeal against Computer Graphics Ltd, holding that the taxpayer was not entitled to CENVAT credit on duty discharged through DEPB scrips and upholding the extended limitation period, penalty and interest.
DEPB Licences Not Eligible For ITC Under TNVAT Act Even If Classified As Goods: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s. P.I. Polymers v. The Commerical Tax Officer
Case Number : W.A.Nos.384 & 387 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 207
The Madras High Court on 24 July held that dealers cannot claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchase of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) licences under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, as such licences, despite being classified as “goods”, do not meet the statutory conditions for availing credit. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed the writ appeals filed by P.I. Polymers and upheld the Single Judge's order denying ITC on DEPB licences, while reaffirming the earlier Division Bench ruling in Sha Kantilal Jayanthilal v. State of Tamil Nadu.
Madras High Court Rules Omission Of 'Wilful Suppression' In Order Not Fatal, Upholds TNVAT Penalty
Case Title : Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Case Number : Tax Case No. 19 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 210
The Madras High Court on 27 July held that a penalty under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act cannot be invalidated merely because the assessment order does not use the expression “wilful suppression” if the material on record establishes deliberate suppression of turnover. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed the tax case filed by Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. and upheld the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order restoring the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case Number : VATAP-29-2016 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 39
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 20 July held that a bona fide classification dispute cannot, by itself, establish an intention to evade tax for imposing penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax (PVAT) Act. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor allowed the appeal filed by Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. and set aside the penalty of Rs. 94,500 imposed under the PVAT Act for allegedly attempting to evade tax on mobile phone accessories.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title : Gajmukhi Bullion v Additional Commissioner & Anr.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14693/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 31
The Rajasthan High Court has recently held that the a taxpayer's reasonable apprehension of bias could not be ignored where the Additional Commissioner who approved the investigation report leading to prosecution also adjudicated the proceedings arising from the same facts. The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar consequently quashed the orders imposing penalties and the appellate order upholding them and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Telangana HC
Case Title : The State of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s Mayuri Film Distributors
Case Number : TREVC. No. 26 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 55
The Telangana High Court on 24 July held that a tax concession granted through a Government notification cannot be withdrawn merely because a new entry is introduced in a tax schedule, unless the notification granting the benefit is expressly withdrawn, superseded or rescinded. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao upheld the concessional sales tax benefit claimed by Mayuri Film Distributors on the sale of audio cassettes, holding that the Government Order granting the concession continued to operate during the relevant assessment year.
CESTAT
Case Title : Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 78732 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 465
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has set aside a ₹7.06 crore central excise demand against public sector undertaking Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd., observing that the appellant, being a PSU, could not be alleged to have acted with mala fide intent to clear goods clandestinely. A coram of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed, "Further, the appellant being a public sector undertaking, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be alleged to be having mala fide intentions to clear the goods clandestinely."
CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied Solely Because Running Account Bills Are Not Invoices: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Rajasthan Housing Board v. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50450 and 50451 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 466
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because running account bills are not conventional invoices, provided they contain the prescribed particulars required under law. Observing that, "The crux of the matter is that the authority needs to be satisfied about the relevant details/particular and not the form of the document," the tribunal ruled in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board.
CESTAT Chennai Quashes ₹14.88 Crore Customs Duty Demand Against Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts
Case Title : Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40683
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 467
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has set aside a ₹14.88 crore customs duty demand against Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. It held that transmission gears imported by the company are classifiable as "gears and gearing" under the Customs Tariff and cannot be treated as motor vehicle parts merely because they are ultimately used in manufacturing vehicles. Holding that the imported goods were specifically classifiable as "gears and gearing" under the Customs Tariff, the tribunal said a specific tariff entry would prevail over the competing entry for motor vehicle parts.
CESTAT Hyderabad Quashes Service Tax Demand On UltraTech Over Railway Wagon Freight Concession
Case Title : UltraTech Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27580 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 468
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the freight concession granted by the Indian Railways under the Liberalized Wagon Investment Scheme (LWIS) is a policy incentive and not consideration for any taxable service. A coram of Judicial Member Justice Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, giving relief to UltraTech Cement observed, "We hold that the appellant has not rendered any taxable service to the Indian Railways under LWIS. The freight concession granted under the scheme is merely a policy incentive linked to capital investment and cannot be regarded as consideration for 'supply of tangible goods for use service'. Accordingly, the impugned orders confirming the demand of service tax, interest and penalties are not sustainable in law."
Case Title : Polychem Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax / CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara-II
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10801 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 469
The Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 27 July held that the extended limitation period under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (which permits recovery beyond the normal limitation period in cases involving fraud, suppression of facts or wilful misstatement) cannot be invoked where the law did not require a taxpayer to disclose the information allegedly suppressed. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha allowed Polychem Industries' appeal and set aside the demand for Cenvat credit, interest and penalty after finding that the Department had wrongly alleged suppression of facts to invoke the extended limitation period.
CESTAT Chandigarh Quashes ₹99.59 Lakh Demand, Says DGOV Guidelines Cannot Override Valuation Rules
Case Title : M/s Fire Stone Metal Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 60333 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 470
The Chandigarh Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 28 July held that Directorate General of Valuation (DGOV) guidelines cannot override the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Also that Customs authorities cannot reject a declared transaction value solely on the basis of such guidelines or London Metal Exchange (LME) prices without evidence proving that the declared value was incorrect. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside the demand of Rs. 99.59 lakh along with interest and penalty imposed on Fire Stone Metal Pvt. Ltd. over alleged undervaluation of imported aluminium scrap.
CA-CPT, ICWA Foundation Coaching Eligible For Service Tax Exemption: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Master Minds v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 27076 of 2013, 23370 of 2014 & 21360 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 471
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has held that coaching imparted for CA-CPT, ICWA Foundation and Intermediate (10+2) examinations is exempt from service tax under the 2011 exemption notification. It held that these courses lead to educational qualifications recognised by law and that the notification does not confine the benefit to the final stage of an educational programme.
Nicotine Sulphate Not Tobacco Product, Examiner Can't Decide Tariff Classification: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : BGP International v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Gandhinagar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10003 of 2021-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 472
The Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 29 July held that Nicotine Sulphate falls under Tariff Heading 29399900 as a vegetable alkaloid and not under Tariff Heading 24039990 as a tobacco product. It clarified that a chemical examiner can only provide analytical findings and cannot determine the tariff classification of a product. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh set aside the excise duty demand of over Rs. 4.60 crore raised against BGP International.
Case Title : Bijay Kumar Jhunjhunwala v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75837 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 473
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently held that a person cannot be penalised for allegedly aiding or facilitating gold smuggling merely because he is the father or an employee of the principal noticee. The tribunal said such penalties can be imposed only where the Revenue produces cogent and independent evidence showing that the person consciously participated in or abetted the alleged smuggling. "The relationship of appellant no. 1 with the principal noticee, howsoever close, cannot ipso facto furnish a legal basis for fastening penal liability in the absence of evidence demonstrating conscious participation in the offending transaction," the bench observed.
Case Title : M/s. Sastasundar Ventures Limited (Known as Microsec Financial Services Limited) v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75922 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 474
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently reiterated that the nomenclature used in an assessee's books of account cannot determine whether a transaction is liable to service tax. Holding that the Revenue had failed to establish that profits earned by an NBFC from investing in a Venture Capital Fund were consideration for a taxable service, the bench observed, "The revenue has relied upon the accounting nomenclature to confirm the demand on the profit/income earned on the investments, as both the profit from investment and management fees have been clubbed under the same accounting head. It is settled principle in law that the nomenclature used in books of accounts cannot determine the taxability of a transaction."
Coal Beneficiation Not Taxable As Business Auxiliary Service Before June 1, 2007: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi South v. Aryan Coal Benefications Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 53733 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 475
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has recently held that beneficiation and washing of coal could not be taxed under the category of Business Auxiliary Service for the period prior to June 1, 2007. Relying on an earlier case involving the taxpayer beore it, the tribunal ruled, "In that circumstance, reliance has been placed in appellant's own case for the earlier case(supra), we hold that the activity of beneficiation/ washing of coal does not fall under the category of “Business Auxiliary Service” prior to 01.06.2007 as the same is classified under Mining Service w.e.f. 01.06.2007" the tribunal observed.
LIC Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Premiums Retained After Policy Lapse: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85811 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 476
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) is not liable to pay service tax on premiums retained after insurance policies lapse or are repudiated. It held that retaining such amounts does not amount to a taxable service of "agreeing to tolerate an act" under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. A coram of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed that there was no independent agreement under which LIC agreed, for consideration, to tolerate any act by a policyholder.
Case Title : RKPS Impex Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86722 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 478
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that finding excess imported goods during examination, even when their assessable value is enhanced, does not by itself establish misdeclaration under the Customs Act, 1962. Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed that the department had produced no evidence to show the importer had ordered or suppressed the excess quantity of goods, and held that confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could not be sustained merely because excess goods were found.
CESTAT Bangalore Allows ACC CENVAT Credit On Fly Ash Transport And Pond Maintenance Services
Case Title : ACC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 20134 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 477
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has ruled in favour of ACC Ltd., holding that the cement manufacturer cannot be denied CENVAT credit on services used to maintain a fly ash pond and transport fly ash to its factory merely because those services were rendered outside the factory premises. It noted that the services were used to bring an essential raw material to the factory for manufacturing and threfore outside taxability. "We find that admittedly there is no dispute that the fly ash in question is the raw material / input for manufacturing of finished goods," the tribunal observed.
Skoda's Technical Know-How Licence To Indian Unit Not Consulting Engineer Service: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Aurangabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 87065 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 479
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.'s licence to use technical know-how, technical documentation, and trademarks from its Czech parent company did not amount to a "Consulting Engineer Service" under the Finance Act, 1994. The bench observed that the arrangement was merely a licence to use pre-existing intellectual property and not a contract for engineering advice or consultancy.