CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹3.77 Crore Penalty Against Maruti Suzuki In Customs Classification Dispute

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a ₹3.77 crore penalty imposed on Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. over the classification of imported Glow Plug Control Units (GCUs).It held that customs authorities had accepted the company's classification of imported Glow Plug Control Units (GCUs) since 2015. The tribunal, however, ruled that the products are classifiable as components of electrical ignition or engine-starting equipment used in diesel engines. ...

Six Month Limitation For Service Tax Refund Starts From SIPCOT Certificate Date: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 14 July held that the six-month limitation period for claiming service tax refund under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017 must be calculated from the date on which the taxpayer receives the mandatory certificate from the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT), and not from the date on which the Finance Act received Presidential assent. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed the taxpayer's appeal, set aside...

Unauthenticated Foreign Authority Documents Can't Be Conclusive Proof In Customs Proceedings: CESTAT Chandigarh

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh has set aside a ₹4.95 crore customs duty demand against Findoc Impex, holding that unauthenticated documents allegedly obtained from the UAE Customs authorities could not, by themselves, establish that dry dates imported into India were of Pakistani origin. Emphasising that the burden rested on the Revenue to prove its allegations, the tribunal observed, "It is not for the appellant to disprove the allegations of the...

No Excise Duty On Liquor Destroyed In Accidental Fire Without Negligence: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4 August held that excise duty cannot be levied on foreign liquor destroyed in an accidental fire where the loss occurred due to an unavoidable cause and there is no evidence of negligence or deliberate wrongdoing by the licensee.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke dismissed the State's writ petition and upheld the Board of Revenue's order setting aside the Rs. 38.41 lakh excise duty demand, finding that the factual conclusions were supported by...

GST Department Cannot Retain Seized Records After Withdrawing Search Authorisation: Madras High Court

On 5 August, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that the GST Department cannot retain files and documents seized during an inspection once it withdraws the search authorisation under which the seizure was made, and directed the immediate return of all records taken from a jewellery dealer. A Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan allowed the writ petition filed by Bhima Enterprises and noted that the Department lost its statutory authority to retain the seized material after withdrawing...

Cruise Does Not Cease To Be 'Carriage Of Passengers' Under Income Tax Act Because Of Onboard Hospitality: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that hospitality and entertainment offered on board a cruise do not alter the essential nature of the activity as the carriage of passengers under the Income Tax Act. Ruling on the applicability of the presumptive taxation regime for non-resident shipping companies under Section 44B, the court observed that ancillary services provided during a voyage do not take the operation outside the scope of the provision.A bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V....

Natural Justice Can't Be 'Sheet Anchor' To Bypass GST Appeal Remedy: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High court has ruled that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy under the GST law and directly invoke writ jurisdiction merely by alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice.Holding that such pleas must be supported by specific facts, the court observed, "Taking refuge under natural justice in every case, as a sheet anchor would not justify filing of a Writ Petition under Art. 226, sans justification in the manner the law mandates. This more...

Delhi High Court Asks Income Tax Department To Explain 13-Year Delay In Releasing Seized Jewellery

The Delhi High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to file a “comprehensive affidavit” explaining the 13-year delay in releasing jewellery seized from an assessee.The Department informed the Court that the jewellery had now been released and assured that the balance refundable amount, along with applicable interest, would be paid within four weeks.However, the Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta sought to know from the Assessing Officer, the reasons for the...

Plea In Delhi High Court Challenges GST Demand Notices Based On Uncorrected Return

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard a petition challenging GST demand notices allegedly issued on the basis of an uncorrected return, despite the petitioner's claim that revised returns had been considered during audit proceedings.The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing a plea filed by an engineering design consultant company.Senior Advocate Puneet Agrawal for the Petitioner-company submitted that while filing its GST return for the financial year 2014–15, a...

Delhi High Court Allows Exporter To Approach GST Authorities For Interest On Refund

The Delhi High Court has permitted an exporter to approach the GST authorities for payment of interest on an allegedly delayed refund under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing a petition filed by a lithium-ion battery recycler, which is engaged in the export of unwrought cobalt powder used in scrap batteries.Petitioner submitted that it had applied on January 22, 2022, for refund of ₹31.44 lakh...

Delhi High Court To Examine CAAR's Power To Void Customs Advance Rulings

The Delhi High Court has admitted an appeal that will examine when the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) can declare an advance ruling void from the outset on the ground that it was obtained through misrepresentation of material facts. The appeal arises from the CAAR's exercise of its powers under Section 28K of the Customs Act, 1962, to declare the appellant's August 6, 2025, advance ruling void ab initio.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing an...

CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Service Tax on Packaged Software Sale, Rules It Is Goods, Not Service

The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that packaged (canned) software is "goods". It therefore ruled that its sale cannot be treated as a taxable service merely because the conditions for claiming the available service tax exemption were not met.A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati observed that once packaged software is recognised as "goods" under Article 366(12) of the Constitution, its sale falls outside the definition of...