LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: May 11 - May 17, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
18 May 2026 2:50 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Requests Early Delhi HC Hearing In Pernod Ricard's ₹3,000 Crore Customs Duty Dispute
Case Title : PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.5200-5201/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Delhi High Court to hear, within weeks, Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd's challenge to a September 2025 customs adjudication order in a valuation dispute in which it allegedly faces duty liability of around Rs 3,000 crore. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh noted that Pernod Ricard's writ petition before the Delhi High Court was listed for July 28, 2026.
Case Title : STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3910 OF 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 189
The Supreme Court on Friday held that a state cannot impose its own Value-Added Tax (VAT) on a transaction that qualifies as an inter-state sale merely because the Central Sales Tax Act deems the sale to have taken place within that state for the limited purpose of identifying which state may collect tax. A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held that where the statutory provision defining an inter-state sale conflicts with the provision determining the deemed location of a sale, the former prevails.
Case Title : RAJASTHAN METALS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 16692/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 191
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Union Government's stand in a dispute where importers have challenged customs authorities' jurisdiction to question preferential duty claims under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) despite valid Certificates of Origin issued by the exporting country. The Court also directed that no final adjudication order be passed in the matter for now. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Manmohan was hearing special leave petitions filed by importers, including Rajasthan Metals, against a Delhi High Court order.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Tax On Agricultural Income, Says Issue Lies with Legislature
Case Title : Aakash Goel v. GNCTD
The Delhi High Court has held that Courts cannot issue directions compelling the legislature or executive to enact a law, including for taxation of agricultural income, and dismissed a public interest litigation seeking such relief. A Division Bench comprising Justices D.K. Upadhyaya and Tejas Karia dismissed the petition as “highly misconceived” and held that no mandamus can be issued to direct legislation on taxation of agricultural income. The judges said: "We cannot issue a mandamus asking them to legislate."
Delhi High Court Sets Aside 'Rubber-Stamped' PRC Orders Rejecting Exporter's Duty Relief Claim
Case Title : O.C. Sweaters LLP v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8336/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 504
The Delhi High Court has set aside three Policy Relaxation Committee orders rejecting O.C. Sweaters LLP's request to count two export shipments under the Advance Authorisation Scheme. The court held that the authorities mechanically rejected the case without meaningfully considering the exporter's contention that a technical glitch prevented it from availing the scheme benefit. “the orders passed by the concerned authorities are merely mechanical in nature and amount to rubber-stamping, without reflecting any independent application of mind,” the Court observed.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhavnagar v. Officer of Deputy Conservator of Forests
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 505 of 2025 with R/Tax Appeal No. 506 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 65
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the Central Excise Department's appeals seeking to recover over ₹3.44 crore in service tax from the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests over charges collected from tourists visiting Gir Forest, holding that the officer was performing sovereign governmental functions and could not be treated as a tour operator. “The respondent - Deputy Conservator of Forest was discharging his sovereign function which cannot be brought within the purview of Service Tax and was not discharging any private function by acting as a Deputy Conservator of Forests. It is also not in dispute that the amount collected in his official capacity is a fee in a nature of compulsory levy which is ultimately is credited to the consolidated funds to the Government of Gujarat since the State Government is the authority which protects and conserves the Forests within its geographical territory.”
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
GST Audit Completion Does Not Bar Further Tax Proceedings for Unpaid Tax: J&K and Ladakh High Court
Case Title : Ess Ess Enterprises And Electronics v. Union of India And Others
Case Number : WP(C ) No. 1020/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 17
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recently held that completion of a GST audit does not prevent tax authorities from initiating further proceedings for unpaid or short-paid tax. Referring to section 65(7) of the CGST Act, the court observed, “A plain reading thereof makes it abundantly clear that where an audit conducted under sub-section (1) of Section 65 results in detection of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized, the proper officer, i.e., the STO concerned, may initiate action under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.”
Karnataka HC
Case Title : M/s ABE Security Mechanics Pvt. Ltd. v. The Superintendent of the Central Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 6841 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 66
The Karnataka High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims rejected as time-barred under Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 must be reconsidered where GST returns for the relevant financial years were filed on or before 30 November 2021, in view of the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the writ petition filed by ABE Security Mechanics Private Limited, set aside the show cause notice dated 5 December 2023 and the Order-in-Original dated 22 February 2024, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Patna HC
Case Title : ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5664 of 2026 connected with CWJC Nos. 5870 of 2026 and 5962 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 10
The Patna High Court has recently refused to quash multiple Central Excise show cause notices issued to ITC Limited, holding that the company could not seek quashing solely on the ground of delayed adjudication when it had not participated in hearings despite repeated opportunities. “For one reason or another, the petitioner did not participate in the hearing. In such circumstances, prima facie, we agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the Central Excise that the delay in the adjudication cannot be solely attributed to the department.”
Rajasthan HC
Case Title : Balaji Exports v Union of India And Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4870/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 18
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed parallel GST proceedings and recovery action against a Jaipur-based exporter after finding prima facie that tax authorities may have initiated duplicate proceedings for the same financial year. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bipin Gupta issued notice to the department and observed that under the GST law, only one proper officer can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter.
CESTAT
CESTAT Bengaluru Quashes Service Tax Demand On Grants-In-Aid, Allows Earth Science Institute Appeal
Case Title : M/s National Centre for Earth Science Studies v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Thiruvananthapuram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21752 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 231
On 8 May, the Bengaluru Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that grants-in-aid received from government departments do not constitute “consideration” and therefore cannot be subjected to service tax under Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed two tax appeals (21752 and 21754 of 2015) filed by the National Centre for Earth Science Studies. It held: “.....wherever the Appellants receives grants-in-aid from Government Departments/Ministries, those grants-in-aid amounts cannot be subjected to service tax since they cannot be treated as 'consideration'.....”
CESTAT Bengaluru Exempts KILA Training Services From Service Tax Under Mega Exemption Notification
Case Title : M/s. Kerala Institute of Local Administration v. Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Kozhikode Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20928 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 232
The Bengaluru Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 8 May 2026 held that training and capacity-building services in local governance provided by the Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) are exempt from service tax. Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi held that the services fall under Serial No. 39 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST as they relate to functions entrusted to municipalities under Article 243W of the Constitution.
Case Title : Varun Beverages Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, NhavaSheva-I
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.85153 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 233
On 8 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Mandarin (Kinow) Frozen Concentrate falls under the residual entry for “juice of any other single citrus fruit” under Tariff Item 2009 3900 and not under the “orange juice” category under Tariff Item 2009 1100, thereby upholding the higher rate of customs duty. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar upheld the Revenue's classification and sustained the duty demand, while granting relief to the importer on limitation and penalty.
Case Title : Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara II
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 11178 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 234
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Ahmedabad has set aside a Rs 4.94 lakh Additional Excise Duty demand against Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. over aerated waters manufactured before the levy came into force but cleared later, holding that the department could not sustain the demand. “Since, the department has accepted the earlier orders in favour of the appellant and has not filed any appeal, therefore, now the department is prevented from taking a contrary stand today,” the tribunal held.
Case Title : M/s Madhucon Sugar & Power Industries Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 25163 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 235
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 May held that Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not permit denial of CENVAT credit on input services used for generation of electricity, since electricity is not an excisable good. Rule 6 bars CENVAT credit to the extent common inputs or input services are used for exempted goods or services. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed the appeal filed by Madhucon Sugar & Power Industries Ltd. and quashed a demand of Rs. 1.17 crore along with interest and penalty, holding that the Department's case lacked a valid legal foundation.
Case Title : Mustafa Ali v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.76228 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 236
In a ruling on the taxability of multi-level marketing (MLM) operations under the pre-GST regime, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that activities involving purchase and sale of goods under an MLM model cannot be classified as taxable “Business Auxiliary Service” under the Finance Act, 1994, where the core activity remains trading in products rather than rendering an independent service.
CESTAT Mumbai Rules Procedural Compliance In Filing Grounds Of Appeal Is Mandatory, Grants Remand
Case Title : SALINI NDT SERVICES P LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE-BELAPUR
Case Number : SERVICE TAX MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.85699 OF 2026 IN SERVICE TAX APPEAL No.86992 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 237
On 12 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that filing proper grounds of appeal along with Form ST-4 under the Finance Act, 1994 is not a mere procedural requirement but a mandatory condition for meaningful adjudication. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma however also held that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits after permitting rectification.
CESTAT Hyderabad Says Buyer's Premises Can Be 'Place of Removal', Upholds GTA Credit In FOR Sales
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal-GST v. Gloster Cables Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30453 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 238
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 May held that in FOR destination sales, where freight and insurance form part of the assessable value and the seller retains risk and ownership till delivery, the buyer's premises can qualify as the “place of removal”. Consequently, Service Tax paid on outward GTA services is eligible for CENVAT Credit. A Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad observed that the Department cannot adopt inconsistent positions by accepting excise duty on a value inclusive of freight and insurance while denying CENVAT Credit on the corresponding transportation services.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes Tax Demand Against IndiGo Holds Aircraft Generators Attract 18% IGST, Not 28%
Case Title : Interglobe Aviation Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55094 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 240
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed tax demands and penalties against InterGlobe Aviation over the classification of aircraft generators imported for use in IndiGo aircraft. It held that generators used with turboprop and turbofan gas turbine engines cannot be classified as equipment used with spark-ignition or compression-ignition internal combustion engines, meaning they attract 18% IGST under the classification claimed by InterGlobe rather than 28% IGST under the tariff entry invoked by customs.
Case Title : Dilip Dhakan v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 240 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 239
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Ahmedabad has set aside a ₹25 lakh customs penalty imposed on a Rodex International partner, holding that he could not be separately penalised once the partnership firm had already been penalised for the same contravention. It, however, reduced another penalty against him to ₹2 lakh in the same concealment case. “I hold that no separate penalty can be imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a)" of Customs Act.
CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Service Tax Demand Against Jamnalal Bajaj Institute On Student Placement Fees
Case Title : Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies v. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai South
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 86651 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 241
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 May held that educational institutions facilitating campus placements cannot attract service tax under “Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service” where employers or recruiting entities pay no consideration and institutions collect placement-related fees only from students. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi allowed the appeal filed by Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, which had imposed service tax liability on placement-related fees collected from students.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Foreign Bank Charges on Export Remittances Not Taxable Under Reverse Charge
Case Title : Lingeswara Creation v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.40056 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 242
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 May held that foreign bank charges deducted during the remittance of export proceeds do not give rise to service tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism, as no service provider–recipient relationship exists between the exporter and the foreign banks. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar, allowed the appeal filed by Lingeswara Creation and set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside ₹29.72 Lakh Demand Against Owens Corning, Bars SCN After Voluntary Payment
Case Title : M/s Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise-Raigad
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 86439 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 243
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 May set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Raigad, which had confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 29.72 lakh along with interest and equal penalty against Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. in relation to rent-a-cab services received under the reverse charge mechanism. Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati held that once the company paid the entire service tax liability along with applicable interest and intimated the department in terms of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, the department could not issue a show cause notice on the same issue.
Case Title : M/s Daya Exports v. Commissioner, CGST & Customs, Noida
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.70068 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 244
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 May held that computer cabinet cases lacking essential components such as a CPU, RAM, and hard disk cannot be treated as incomplete or unfinished computer systems merely on account of the presence of other parts like motherboards, fans, wiring, and power supply units. Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon allowed the appeal by Daya Exports and set aside confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties imposed under the Customs Act.
CESTAT Mumbai Bars Revenue From Recovering Education Cesses In Cash After MEIS Scrip Payment
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (Air Cargo Import) Vs C J Shah
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85948 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 245
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed Revenue appeals seeking to recover Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess in cash from importers. These importers had already paid the amounts using duty credit scrips issued under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS), an export incentive programme under India's Foreign Trade Policy that rewarded exporters with duty credits. “The attempt by Revenue to recover the same in cash would lead to double recovery, which is impermissible in law.”
Case Title : Champion Jointing Private Limited v. CGST & Central Excise, Surat
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 11862 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 246
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad has set aside a ₹11.12 lakh service tax demand against Champion Jointing Private Limited over performance commission and perquisites paid to its whole-time directors. Judicial Member S.S. Garg held: “The entire demand proceeds on a misconception of law, namely that any remuneration paid by a company to its directors beyond fixed monthly salary must be regarded as consideration for independent taxable service.”
CESTAT Bangalore Holds Chocolate Flavour Not A Cocoa Preparation, Quashes Customs Duty Demand
Case Title : Prova Flavours India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 20143 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 247
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 May held that the chocolate flavouring substances meant to be added to food cannot be classified as “chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa” under Customs Tariff Heading 18069090. Judicial Member Justice P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao set aside the customs duty demand, interest, and penalties against Prova Flavours India Pvt Ltd and allowed its appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore.
Senior Tax Officers Can Exercise Powers Of Subordinate Officers Under AP Sales Tax Act: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case Number : CST Appeal Nos. 01 and 02 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 248
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently held that senior tax officers can exercise powers vested in subordinate officers under the Andhra Pradesh sales tax law. The tribunal made the observation while dismissing appeals filed by Hyderabad-based refined oil and vanaspati manufacturer Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd. against a Central Sales Tax demand of Rs. 2.33 crore and a penalty of Rs. 6.43 crore.
CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Recovery Against Hindustan Copper Over 23-Year Delay and No Show Cause Notice
Case Title : M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No.85750 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 249
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 May set aside recovery proceedings against Hindustan Copper Ltd., holding that adjudication conducted nearly 23 years after the demand notice was issued was legally unsustainable and violated principles of natural justice. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma, allowed the appeal and set aside the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The Tribunal held: “The department's inaction for approximately twenty-three years is not merely a procedural lapse, it amounts to a constructive abandonment of the proceeding. Having allowed the matter to rest undisturbed for so long, the Revenue cannot be permitted to revive and complete a proceeding that causes grave and irreparable prejudice to the Appellant, whose ability to meet the demand has been fundamentally compromised by the passage of time.”
CESTAT New Delhi Holds Transfers Between Amalgamated Units Not Taxable As Related-Party Sales
Case Title : M/s RR Ispat v. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : EXCISE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.50629 OF 2023 AND 51251 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 250
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 May held that transfers of goods between amalgamated units sharing the same legal identity do not qualify as “sales” under the Central Excise law and, therefore, the related-party valuation rules do not apply. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal by R R ISPAT and held that once two units are amalgamated and operate under the same PAN and Corporate Identification Number, they no longer remain separate legal persons.
Case Title : Standard Chartered Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86325 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 251
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 May set aside a Rs. 2.73 crore service tax demand raised against Standard Chartered Finance Pvt. Ltd., holding that the show cause notice was fundamentally defective because it did not specify the exact statutory provision under which the Department sought to tax the services. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi quashed the demand along with interest and penalties, holding that the defective notice violated principles of natural justice.
Case Title : SOL Mobiles Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 87854 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 252
On 12 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the customs demands and penalties on SOL Mobiles Private Limited and its Vice-President (Finance & Accounts) Manjit Jha, holding that unlocking and activating mobile phones before export amounted only to “configuration” and not “use” under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the customs proceedings could not survive in view of the Delhi High Court's ruling in AIMS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., which the Supreme Court later left undisturbed.
Hyderabad CESTAT Upholds Rule 26 Penalty On Philips For Knowledge Of Undervalued Excisable Goods
Case Title : M/s Philips Electronics India Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Tax Medchal - GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 26858 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 253
On 14 May, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the appeal filed by Philips Electronics India Ltd. challenging the penalty imposed in connection with excisable goods manufactured by Quad Electronic Solutions Pvt Ltd. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad held that a company can be penalised under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules if it knowingly deals with goods cleared at undervalued prices that are liable for confiscation.
CESTAT Delhi Rejects Customs Case Against PU Leather Importers Over Unsealed Laptop Evidence
Case Title : Baba Leather Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 49-54 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 254
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside customs duty demands and penalties imposed on multiple importers of PU leather fabric. It held that electronic records retrieved from an unsealed laptop kept in investigators' custody could not be relied upon, as the department had failed to follow the legal procedure required to authenticate electronic evidence under the Customs Act (Section 138C). A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, also held that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon. It said the mandatory legal procedure for relying on statements recorded during the investigation had not been followed (Section 138B).
Case Title : Sharp Mint Limited v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Delhi North
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 51692 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 255
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a central excise duty demand of over Rs. 50 lakh raised against Sharp Mint Limited, holding that the department failed to prove its allegation that the company had clandestinely removed excisable goods found in its godown. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Sharp Mint Limited against a de novo adjudication order passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX, Delhi North.
GSTAT
GSTAT Extends Relaxed GST Appeal Filing Guidelines On Portal Till December 31, 2026
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) Principal Bench, New Delhi, has extended till December 31, 2026 the relaxed filing framework for appeals on the GSTAT Portal, citing difficulties faced by appellants during the initial phase of the portal's functioning. The extension has been granted through an office order dated May 14, 2026. The order continues the earlier relaxation measures introduced through an office order dated January 20, 2026 and instructions issued on March 10, 2026.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has directed that all pending matters and future filings before its Principal Bench and State Benches must first be placed before Division Benches. The law permits matters involving tax liability or other issues valued below ₹50 lakh and not involving any question of law to be listed before a Single Bench with the approval of the President. In an office order dated May 14, 2026, GSTAT President Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra said that under Section 109(8) of the CGST Act and Rule 110A of the CGST Rules, such matters may be listed before a Single Bench with the approval of the President.
Authority For Advance Ruling
Case Title : In re Unitech Engineers
Case Number : 01/ODISHA-AAR/2026-27
The Odisha Authority for Advance Ruling has recently ruled that a sub-contractor supplying Coursera user licences to the Odisha Skill Development Authority cannot claim GST exemption as an education service, ruling that its role was limited to enabling access to third-party digital content rather than imparting education. “The applicant does not conduct training and no faculty, curriculum control, or instructional responsibility lies with the applicant. The role of the applicant is limited to facilitating access to third-party educational content. Further, under the MOU dated 24.12.2023, Coursera provides rights to OSDA to access its platform and the platform hosts courses and specializations from world class universities and instructors. However, neither the Applicant nor Coursera is obligated under the MOU to deliver any Education and Training to the technical students. The courses are made available; the act of teaching is performed by thirdparty universities and instructors on Coursera's platform, not by the Applicant. Therefore, the supply cannot be classified as education service.”, it ruled.
Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling
Gujarat AAAR Confirms Geomembrane Classification As Textile Product For Technical Use
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner, Central GST v. Shree Ambica Geotex Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2026/03
The Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (GAAAR), in April 2026, upheld the classification of geomembranes under HSN 5911 as textile products for technical use, holding that the issue stood conclusively settled by the Gujarat High Court. A Bench comprising SGST Member Arti Kanwar and CGST Member Sunil Kumar Mall, upheld Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/2022/46 dated 18 October 2022, and rejected the Revenue's challenge seeking classification of the product under HSN 3926 as an article of plastic.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Centre Raises Gold, Silver Import Duty To 15% From 6% Effective Today
The Central Government has increased the effective import duty on gold and silver to 15% from 6% through a set of customs notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance, with the revised rates taking effect from May 13. The revised duty structure doubles the basic customs duty on the two precious metals to 10% from 5%, while increasing the Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess to 5% from 1%, taking the overall effective levy to 15%.