LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: May 18 - May 24, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
25 May 2026 3:28 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Future Maker Directors In Rs 54.77 Crore Service Tax Evasion Case
Case Title : RADHE SHYAM & ANR. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3559/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 193
The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to Radhey Shyam and another senior official of Future Maker Life Care Pvt Ltd in a Rs 54.77 crore service tax evasion case. The case arises from allegations that the multi-level direct marketing company failed to discharge its statutory tax liabilities. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that continued custody of the petitioners would serve no useful purpose in the tax case. The Court noted that assets worth about Rs 261 crore, including cash and immovable properties linked to the company and family members, had already been attached.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Relief To RSRTC In ₹16 Crore Service Tax Dispute
Case Title : THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CGST JAIPUR VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Case Number : Diary No.24485/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 197
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a tribunal ruling that granted major relief to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) in a long-running service tax dispute involving demands exceeding ₹16 crore over allegations that it operated as a “tour operator” and failed to pay tax on certain other services. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jaipur, against a January 6 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : Manoj Kumar, Proprietor of M/S Sai Traders v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that where a taxpayer discloses the actual date of communication of an order under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the burden shifts to the Revenue to rebut that assertion with cogent material. It further held that the appellate authority is bound to give an independent finding on the date of communication of the order.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Treats Polypropylene Sacks As Plastic, Not Textile Products In GST Dispute
Case Title : Mega Flex Plastics Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : MAT 364 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 167
The Calcutta High Court has held that polypropylene leno bags manufactured by Mega Flex Plastics Limited should be treated as plastic sacks, not textile products, for GST purposes. A Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed that the company's bags were commonly known in the market as “plastic sacks” and not textile sacks. The court held, “The sacks manufactured by the appellant are commonly known in the market as plastic sacks. They are not known as synthetic textile sacks or textile sacks.”
Delhi HC
Mere Concealment Of Gold Not Enough To Prove Customs Duty Evasion: Delhi High Court
Case Title : UoI v. Hemant Kumar Ishwar Dass Singhvi
Case Number : CRL.A.1503/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 522
The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of smuggling gold into India, holding that mere concealment of gold was insufficient to establish fraudulent evasion of customs duty when the passenger was intercepted before he could proceed through customs clearance. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging the acquittal of a Mumbai-based passenger who was found carrying 30 gold biscuits weighing 3496.400 grams concealed in a waist belt at Delhi's IGI Airport in 1991.
Landlord Cannot Recover Service Tax From Tenant Without Express Clause In Lease: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Tannia Rikhy & Ors. v. Sunrider India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RFA 32/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 532
The Delhi High Court has on Thursday held that a landlord cannot recover service tax from a tenant in the absence of an express covenant in the lease deed imposing such liability on the tenant. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by landlords against a decree directing refund of ₹5.53 lakh deducted from the tenant's refundable security deposit towards alleged service tax dues. The dispute arose between Sunrider India Pvt Ltd and the landlords in relation to a commercial premises in the city's Vasant Vihar area, leased under an agreement dated August 28, 2006.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Keyur Jayendrabhai Patel Through Jalpa Jayendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No. 4428 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 66
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the arrest of a person accused in a fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) racket, holding that while an arrestee must be furnished the “reasons to believe” forming the basis of arrest to enable a legal challenge, failure to provide a verbatim signed copy of the Commissioner's internal note does not vitiate the arrest. "Therefore, this Court, is of the opinion that the 'reasons to believe' recorded by the Commissioner has been furnished to the petitioner, facilitating him to challenge his arrest on the grounds as permissible and available to him in law.", the court observed.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Tobacco Trader Accused Of ₹3.32 Crore Excise Duty Evasion
Case Title : Vikash Gupta v. Union of India
Case Number : MCRC No. 19184 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 36
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has recently refused bail to a tobacco trader accused of evading around ₹3.32 crore in central excise duty by allegedly concealing tobacco packing machines and illegally manufacturing tobacco products. Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta observed that the trader's claim that one of the two machines found during the search was non-functional could not, at this stage, weaken the prosecution case. “Mere oral assertion during search proceedings that the machine was not operational cannot prima facie dislodge the prosecution case at the stage of bail.”, it observed.
Patna HC
IOCL's Terminal Facilities For Crude Oil Storage At Barauni Attract Service Tax: Patna High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Excise and Services Tax Patna v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Barauni Refinery, Begusarai, Bihar.
Case Number : Miscellaneous Appeal No. 376 of 2019.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 13
The Patna High Court has held that terminal facilities used by IOCL's Barauni Refinery for storing crude oil before onward transportation constituted an independent taxable service liable to service tax, and were not merely incidental to pipeline transportation. The court ruled, “If MOU creates a provision of a separate charge for 'discharge facility' or 'terminal facilities' or 'storing of crude oil' before entering into next phase of transportation for Bongaigaon Refinery then, it cannot be said the integral part or incidental part of pipeline transportation.”
CESTAT
Case Title : Indiamart Intermesh Ltd. v. Commissioner ofCGST & Central Excise, Delhi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54709 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 256
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi, has set aside a ₹1.53 crore service tax demand, along with interest and penalties, against Indiamart Intermesh Ltd. It held that the company's investment in and redemption of mutual fund units could not be treated as an exempt service for the purpose of denying CENVAT credit. “The mere investment in mutual fund units by the Appellant and the subsequent redemption of those units does not involve the rendering of any activity by the Appellant for any other person for consideration,” the tribunal said.
Case Title : Lemon Tree Hotel v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 22099 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 257
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld a ₹33.54 lakh service tax demand and penalties against Lemon Tree Hotel. The Tribunal found that the hotel wrongly claimed abatement benefits while availing CENVAT credit on input services linked to its restaurant and accommodation services. “We have not found any evidence to suggest that the services like Maintenance and Repair services or Internet services or Courier services were not used for providing any of these services viz., RS or AS.”, the tribunal observed.
Stock Broker's Charges For Clients' Delayed Share Payments Not Service Taxable: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Steel City Securities Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30893 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 259
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has partly allowed Steel City Securities Ltd.'s appeal against a service tax demand on delayed payment charges collected from clients, setting aside the demand relating to stock broking transactions while upholding the levy on delayed payments linked to DEMAT account services. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi held that delayed payment charges collected for late payment towards share purchases were relatable to interest on funds deployed by the broker and could not be treated as a taxable declared service.
Case Title : All Sky Marketing Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75644 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 258
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside Customs' confiscation of All Sky Marketing Pvt Ltd's All Sky, D&B and Eleprint branded shoe consignments. It held that the confiscation of those goods could not be sustained, noting that they were separately packed, were not used to conceal the infringing goods, and that the adjudicating authority had given no reasons for confiscating them.
Case Title : M/s. Krishna Kunj Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.52453 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 260
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 May held that roads constructed within Krishna Kunj Pvt. Ltd.'s “Solitaire Industrial Park-II” at Jaipur were meant for use by the general public and qualified for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed the appeal filed by Krishna Kunj and upheld denial of CENVAT credit on merits but remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for recomputation of the demand for the normal period, along with applicable interest and penalty.
Case Title : M/s GE India Industrial Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 31258 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 261
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the one-year limitation for refund claims by exporters of services runs from the date of receipt of foreign exchange remittance, and not from the end of the relevant quarter. A coram of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi was interpreting the amended refund notification applicable to service exporters from March 2016, and held, "We, therefore, find that a plain reading of notification clearly requires them to file refund claim within one year from the date of receipt of convertible foreign exchange.”
Case Title : Jasmine Biotechnologies v. Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 2352 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 263
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently set aside the reclassification of imports made by Jasmine Biotechnologies from bio-fertilisers to insecticides. It held that the Customs Department failed to establish through cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence that the products were insecticides or prohibited imports. The Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi passed the order while allowing four connected appeals filed against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad.
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Rs 33.88 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against Gurbani Constructions
Case Title : M/s Gurbani Constructions v. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Dehradun
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50121 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 262
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a service tax demand of over Rs.33 lakh against Gurbani Constructions over alleged taxable construction activities and purported additional payments from a hotel client. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that the department could not sustain the demand without evidence. “He who asserts has to prove” and if a show cause notice is issued alleging that the appellant had constructed residential complexes, “it is for the department to prove this along with evidence in the SCN.”
CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Interest On Delayed Refund Of ₹21.17 Crore Extra Duty Deposit To JSW Steel
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Vs JSW Steel Limited
Case Number : CUSTOMS STAY APPLICATION NO. 85268 OF 2018 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 85677 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 264
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Customs cannot deny interest on the delayed refund of ₹21.17 crore paid as Extra Duty Deposit merely because Bills of Entry remained pending finalisation on unrelated issues. The tribunal observed that “under no circumstances can the respondents be made liable for the delay on the part of the Department, which fact has also been taken cognizance in the impugned order by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)."
Case Title : Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Medchal - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 527 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 265
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on payments made to Russian state agency Rosoboronexport. The payments are related to the transfer of technology and technical assistance for the manufacture of SU-30 MKI aircraft in India. The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi. The tribunal partly allowed HAL's appeals against service tax demands raised by the department on the alleged import of “Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services”.
Case Title : M/s Vanesa Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD (Import), Tughlakabad, New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55715 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 266
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 May set aside customs duty demands exceeding Rs. 25 lakh against Vanesa Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. holding that customs authorities cannot invoke the extended limitation period under the Customs Act merely because they disagree with the tariff classification adopted by the importer. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed the company's appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi, and quashed the duty demand, penalties and confiscation proceedings.
CESTAT Ahmedabad Remands Customs Dispute Over Imported Goods' Classification As Thinner Or Solvent
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Mundra Customs v. Bright Petrochem India LLP
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 10139 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 269
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has remanded a customs classification dispute involving imported petrochemical products. It found that the available laboratory reports did not conclusively establish whether the goods were general-purpose paint thinners or restricted petroleum hydrocarbon solvents. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh held that fresh testing was necessary. The bench observed that “correct classification of goods cannot be determined in absence of all the relevant parameters.”
Case Title : Shri Ashok Kharey, Director v. Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 26384 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 267
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 May upheld a penalty of Rs. 20 lakh imposed on Ashok Kharey, director of Hong Kong based Maxx Access Ltd., holding that foreign nationals can be penalised under the Customs Act where their conduct has a direct nexus with customs fraud and duty evasion in India. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad dismissed Kharey's appeal, observing: "Once manipulated invoices were knowingly prepared and utilized for Customs clearance in India, the offence stood completed within Indian Territory. A person situated outside India, who consciously and deliberately participates in fraudulent importation into India, cannot seek immunity merely because of the conspiracy (acts of appellant) originated outside India".
Case Title : Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52209 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 268
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 May set aside the customs duty demand, confiscation order and penalty imposed on Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Department failed to establish that the imported goods were complete mobile phones in CKD/SKD condition. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar reiterated that imported goods can be reclassified as finished articles under Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff only if the Customs Department discharges the burden of proving that they possess the essential character of the complete goods.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes Service Tax Demand On Indian Unit Over Foreign Parent's Un-Invoiced Allocations
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Dana India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50734 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 270
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has quashed a Rs 1.88 crore service tax demand raised on an Indian subsidiary over un-invoiced allocations reflected in its foreign parent company's internal accounting system. The Tribunal found that the disputed amounts did not relate to any service rendered to the subsidiary and involved no consideration. A coram of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao dismissed appeals filed by the Revenue against Dana India Private Ltd., its Managing Director Saket Sapra, Head of Finance Sharad Jain, and General Managers (Finance) Sunil Joshi and Manoj Agarwal. It upheld an order that had dropped the tax demand and penalties.
Case Title : M/s Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Taxes & Central Excise, Gautam Budddh Nagar
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70080 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 271
On 19 May, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax under the reverse charge mechanism cannot be levied merely on the basis of payments made in foreign currency, and that the Department must first establish receipt of a taxable service. Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside service tax demands exceeding Rs 77 crore raised against Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. for the period July 2006 to June 2017.
CESTAT Delhi Holds Glucometers Are Instruments For Chemical Analysis, Not Medical Diagnostic Devices
Case Title : Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 52218 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 272
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has allowed Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the customs department's attempt to reclassify its imported diagnostic devices, including glucometers, from instruments for chemical analysis to medical diagnostic instruments. The tribunal set aside the differential duty demand and penalties. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that the issue was no longer open to debate in view of earlier Tribunal rulings and the Supreme Court's affirmation of one such decision. The bench held that Aspen had correctly classified the subject goods and rightly availed the exemption benefit.
Case Title : Aglow Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51968 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 273
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that licence fees, engineering package charges, and technical assistance payments cannot be added to the assessable value of imported equipment where they are separately contracted and are not a condition of sale. A bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed, “Law has been settled that once separate prices are provided for the supply of technical assistance, royalty etc. on one part and supply of equipment or capital goods on other part, then the consideration for the supply of technical assistance cannot be added to the assessable value in respect of import of equipment.”
Case Title : M/s Shaifali Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 214 & 215 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 278
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 May held that once Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was declared ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. v. Union of India judgment, the Department could not demand excise duty merely because the taxpayer utilised CENVAT credit during the period of default in payment of duty. Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh partly allowed the appeals and set aside the excise duty demand of Rs. 3.60 crore and the equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC. The Tribunal, however, clarified that interest liability on delayed payment of duty would survive.
CESTAT Chandigarh Holds Credit Card Cashback Incentives Not Taxable, Upholds Relief To Tek Travels
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Gurugram v. M/s Tek Travels Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60937 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 276
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 14 May held that cashback incentives received from banks on the use of commercial credit cards for airline ticket bookings do not constitute consideration for any taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and P. Technical Member Anjani Kumar upheld the Commissioner's order dropping the service tax demand of Rs. 8.03 crore raised against Tek Travels Pvt. Ltd. on cashback incentives received from banks for using commercial credit cards.
Case Title : M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Noida
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.70228 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 277
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 14 May held that concrete mix manufactured and consumed at construction sites for residential projects qualifies for exemption from central excise duty and cannot be classified as “Ready Mix Concrete” (RMC) without technical evidence establishing the characteristics of RMC manufacturing. Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon held that the Department failed to prove that Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. manufactured RMC and allowed all five appeals with consequential relief.
Case Title : A. Mariappan v. Commissioner of Customs & Connected Matters
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40309 of 2024 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 279
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 May upheld penalties against exporters, customs brokers and a customs officer in a case involving the alleged export of gold-plated copper jewellery as “22 carat gold jewellery” to fraudulently divert duty-free imported gold under an export promotion scheme. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao noted that the customs broker and its personnel facilitated examination of consignments outside the prescribed roster mechanism.
Case Title : Ratnaveer Stainless Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 11958, 11957 & 11936 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 274
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed appeals filed by Ratnaveer Stainless Products Pvt. Ltd., its director and a customs broker. The dispute concerned Countervailing Duty (CVD) liability on imports made under Advance Authorisation between September 7, 2017 and October 12, 2017. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh passed the order. Holding that the issue was “no more res-integra”, the Tribunal followed the Allahabad Bench ruling in Vishal Metal Industries and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title : Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : CST Appeal Nos. 12 & 13 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 281
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd.'s movement of goods from Maharashtra to its depots in other States for subsequent sales amounted to stock transfers and not inter-State sales liable to Central Sales Tax. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that the agreement between Kimberly Clark and Hindustan Lever Limited was merely a broad framework or standing offer, with the contract of sale arising only when specific purchase orders were placed.
CESTAT Delhi Holds GE Vernova's Imported Products Are Relays, Not Multifunctional Devices
Case Title : GE Vernova T&D India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 52421, 52730, 52732 & 52733 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 275
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that four imported products of GE Vernova T&D India Ltd., including relay products with additional monitoring, data logging and alarm features, remain classifiable as “relays.” The tribunal held that their principal function continues to be protection and control of electrical systems. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed appeals filed by GE Vernova T&D India Ltd. and three of its officials. The appeals challenged a customs order that had reclassified the imported products as Feeder Management Intelligent Electronic Devices (FMIEDs), denied exemption benefits to certain imports, and imposed duty demands and penalties.
Importer Cannot Contest Customs Reassessment After Accepting Enhanced Value: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Mahabal Impex v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51109 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 280
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has dismissed an importer's challenge to enhancement of customs value after finding that it had accepted the revised valuation, paid duty, and cleared the goods without protest. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao distinguished the Delhi High Court's ruling in Niraj Silk Mills, where the importer had consistently protested the reassessment and sought provisional clearance. “It clearly transpires from the records that the appellant unconditionally accepted the enhanced value and paid the duty and cleared the goods and it is later that a challenge was made to the enhancement of the value in the appeal.”
Case Title : Rathi Iron & Steel Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 52749 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 282
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a Rs.10 lakh penalty imposed on Rathi Iron & Steel Ind. Ltd., finding no material to show that the company had dealt with goods allegedly removed without payment of duty or had knowledge or belief that they were liable to confiscation. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held, “The appellant had not dealt with the goods that may be liable to confiscation and nor is there anything to show that the appellant had knowledge or belief that such goods were liable for confiscation.”
GSTAT
Case Title : A & T Security Services Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner Central Tax Delhi West & Ors.
Case Number : APL/1/DEL/2026
On 18 May 2026, the Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) held that where service of notices through the GST portal is rendered ineffective due to credential-related issues, additional modes of service such as registered post and speed post may be directed in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Judicial Member Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Rajiv Kapoor allowed the request of A & T Security Services Private Limited and directed that notice in the GST appeal be served through registered post, speed post, the GST portal, and email.