HC · Allahabad ● Bail Granted Gautam Sharma v Union of India 2026-juristway.com-3382-HC(Allahabad)-GST 06 November 2026 In Gautam Sharma v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3382-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a partner of Aarti Industry was arrested by the DGGI on allegations that nine suppliers passed on fake ITC of Rs. 38 crore and remained in custody from 26.07.2026 after the complaint was filed, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court granted bail. The Hon'ble High Court relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atul Mehra, Vineet Jain, Ratnambar Kaushik and Manish Sisodia, noting the five-year maximum sentence, Magistrate trial, documentary evidence and absence of antecedents (paras 10–17). It also took note that the DGGI could not dispute the circular dated 30.10.2026 recommending withdrawal of arrest powers under GST (paras 4, 18). Bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions (para 19). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Digital Universe v State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3381-HC(Allahabad)-GST 06 November 2026 In Digital Universe v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3381-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the show cause notice dated 23.02.2023 for July 2017 to March 2018 and two reminders recorded the personal hearing date, time and venue as "N.A.", and the appeal against the order dated 01.09.2023 was rejected on delay, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that the order was a classic case of violation of natural justice (para 9). It rejected the State's plea that the petitioner could have sought a hearing. Both orders were quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh order (para 10). GSTAT · Dehradun ● Dismissed Shri Guru Kripa Medical Store & Shri Mahant Indresh Hospital v Nitin Wapa, Additional Comissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax 2026-juristway.com-3380-GSTAT(Dehradun)-GST 06 November 2026 In Shri Guru Kripa Medical Store v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, 2026-juristway.com-3380-GSTAT(Dehradun)-GST , where the appellant failed to file Form APL-05 and did not appear on any of five listings before the Registrar and the Bench despite a last opportunity, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Dehradun Bench held that APL-05 gives statutory recognition to an appeal and that only after defects are cured is an appeal number and APL-02 acknowledgment issued (para 2). The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable (paras 3–4). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Allowed Maithan Steel and Power Limited v Satyajit Singh, Commissioner Kolkata South 2026-juristway.com-3379-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Maithan Steel and Power Limited v. Commissioner, Kolkata South, 2026-juristway.com-3379-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where transitional CENVAT credit of Rs. 14,26,661 was carried forward on the basis of manually revised ER-1 returns while the electronic ER-1 showed Rs. 4,61,533, and the First Appellate Authority upheld a Section 73 demand of Rs. 9,65,128 after deleting the capital goods demand of Rs. 3,52,678, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench decided the jurisdictional objection first (para 16). Following the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Usha Martin and the binding decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Kunjal Synergies, it held that whether CENVAT credit was admissible under the existing law lies outside Section 73 of the CGST Act and must be decided under the existing law saved by Section 174(2)(e) (paras 18–22.3). The Revenue offered only a bare assertion that Usha Martin was distinguishable (para 22.2). The appellate order was set aside and the appeal allowed (para 22.4). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed Atanu Mondal v Stores and Spares Co 2026-juristway.com-3378-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Atanu Mondal v. Stores and Spares Co., 2026-juristway.com-3378-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where a registered dealer carried forward CGST credit of Rs. 36,35,704 through Table 5(a) of Form GST TRAN-1 instead of Table 7(a), and the First Appellate Authority set aside the demand, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench dismissed the Revenue's appeal, deciding three issues against it. Wrong table in TRAN-1: Following Blue Bird Pure, R.R. Distributors, Calcutta Radio Service and Adfert Technologies, a wrong-table entry is a procedural lapse that cannot defeat credit if the taxpayer is otherwise eligible; Circular No. 180/12/2022-GST does not dilute that principle (paras 5.VIII–5.XIII). New ground of ineligibility: The show cause notice and order rested solely on the wrong table; the Revenue cannot question Section 140(3) eligibility for the first time in appeal, applying principles analogous to constructive res judicata (paras 5.XIV–5.XVII). Section 107(11) inquiry: The power to make "such further inquiry as may be necessary" is discretionary, not an obligation in every appeal (para 5.XVIII). Order: The order of the First Appellate Authority was upheld (para 5.XIX). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Partly Allowed A to Z Chemicals v Krishna Gopal Saha, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Lalbazar & Radhabazar Charge, WBGST & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3377-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In A to Z Chemicals v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, 2026-juristway.com-3377-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where a Kolkata chemicals trader availed IGST credit of FY 2017-18 as CGST and SGST and was directed to reverse it with interest and penalty, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench decided two issues. On the first, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the reversal of Rs. 4,176 each under CGST and SGST for breach of Section 16(4) could not survive in view of the non obstante clause in Section 16(5) (para 13). On the second, applying the Hon'ble Kerala High Court's decisions in Kalleppuram Metals and Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex, which treat the credit ledger as a single wallet and the mis-heading as a technical error without loss of revenue, it held those rulings squarely applicable (paras 15–20). The First Appellate Authority's order was set aside and the main issue remanded for decision within three months (para 20). HC · Delhi ● Allowed Harish Goyal v Commissioner of Customs. 2026-juristway.com-3376-HC(Delhi)-Customs 06 November 2026 In Harish Goyal v. Commissioner of Customs, 2026-juristway.com-3376-HC(Delhi)-Customs , where a Ludhiana-based customs house agent was penalised Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 112(b)(i) for knowledge of Chinese firecrackers concealed behind bicycle parts and for arranging meetings with Delhi-based agents, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court set aside the penalty. The Hon'ble High Court found no evidence beyond co-noticees' statements, and noted that the Department's case that M/s Rahul Traders was the actual importer had collapsed when the CESTAT quashed Rahul Sehgal's penalty (para 13). The CESTAT wrongly assumed that cross-examination had not been sought, and refusal of cross-examination offended natural justice and Section 138B (paras 14–15). Treating the appellant differently from co-noticees whose penalties were quashed was unsustainable (para 16), and the appeal was allowed. CESTAT · Chennai ● Allowed M/s Promac Engineering Industries Limited v The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2026-juristway.com-3375-CESTAT(Chennai)-Customs 06 November 2026 In Promac Engineering Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, 2026-juristway.com-3375-CESTAT(Chennai)-Customs , where customs brokers filed free shipping bills for exports of vertical roller mills to Sudan made under an Advance Authorisation, and the Commissioner, on remand, again rejected conversion for delay and lack of port examination, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai set aside the rejection. The Hon'ble Tribunal followed the Bangalore Bench order in the appellant's own case on the same authorisation, which had directed conversion (paras 6–8). It noted that the time limit in the circular relied on below had been held ultra vires the statute by High Courts (para 8). The appeal was allowed (para 9). NCLAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Dismissed Manoj Kumar Agarwal v IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. 2026-juristway.com-3374-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC 06 November 2026 In Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. IL&FS Financial Services Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3374-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC , where the personal guarantee was invoked by recall notice dated 10.08.2018 and the Section 95 application was filed on 08.05.2024, the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench upheld admission of the insolvency resolution process against the guarantor. The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal held that Clause 5(f) of the guarantee deed made the borrower's acknowledgment in its FY 2019-20 balance sheet, signed on 12.08.2020, binding on the guarantor, and that the deed governs the guarantor's liability (paras 39–40, 43). Applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's computation in the borrower's Section 7 case, limitation ran to 28.02.2025 after excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 (paras 37, 44). Following Bernard John, Laxmi Pat Surana and Pooja Ramesh Singh, and distinguishing Channaveerappa Beleri on the deed's terms, the appeal was dismissed (paras 45–51). NCLAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Dismissed Ajay Singh Narania v Harish Kant Kaushik & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3373-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC 06 November 2026 In Ajay Singh Narania v. Harish Kant Kaushik, 2026-juristway.com-3373-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC , where the appellant challenged an NCLT, Mumbai order dated 27.03.2026 uploaded on 08.04.2026 and filed the appeal on 21.05.2026 claiming only 13 days' delay, the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench held that limitation ran from 27.03.2026, when the order was pronounced in the presence of the appellant's counsel (paras 9–11). The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal distinguished Sanjay Pandurang Kalate, which applied where no order was pronounced on the hearing date, and followed V. Nagarajan and Tata Steel v. Raj Kumar Banerjee, as the certified copy was sought only on 20.05.2026 (paras 14–19). The delay condonation application and the appeal were dismissed as beyond the 45-day limit (paras 20–21). CESTAT · Bangalore ● Allowed The Commissioner of Customs, Mangaluru v M/s. Gajanan Worldtrade India Pvt. Ltd. 2026-juristway.com-3319-CESTAT(Bangalore)-Customs 06 November 2026 In Commissioner of Customs, Mangaluru v. Gajanan Worldtrade India Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3319-CESTAT(Bangalore)-Customs , where an importer of almonds in shell paid SAD in October and November 2016 but claimed its refund of Rs. 19,11,229 only on 01.01.2018, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore held that the claim was time-barred under paragraph 2(c) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. (paras 6, 8). The Hon'ble Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sony India answered only whether the limit applied retrospectively to imports before 01.08.2008 (paras 7–7.2). It followed the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CMS Info Systems and the coordinate Bench rulings in Honda Siel Power Products and Ingram Micro, which hold that every condition of the exemption, including the time limit, must be met (paras 8–9). The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the Revenue's appeal allowed. NCLAT · New Delhi ● Dismissed Sudarshan Aithal Suspended Director of Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v Bank of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3318-NCLAT(New Delhi)-IBC 06 November 2026 In Sudarshan Aithal v. Bank of India, 2026-juristway.com-3318-NCLAT(New Delhi)-IBC , where the suspended director did not dispute debt or default but challenged CIRP admission on the grounds of a pending OTS, the minority share (about 9.4%) of the applicant bank and the assignment of the debt to an ARC for Rs. 621 crores, the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi held that the Adjudicating Authority rightly admitted the Section 7 application (paras 30–31, 39). Applying Innoventive Industries and M. Suresh Kumar Reddy, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that Vidarbha Industries turned on its own facts and that admission follows once default is shown (paras 32–33). The OTS lapsed because the 10% upfront deposit of Rs. 59 crores was never paid, and the later offer of Rs. 631 crores in two instalments, recorded by the Hon'ble Tribunal itself on 29.06.2026, was also not honoured (paras 34–37). Under the amended Section 12A, withdrawal now requires the prescribed procedure, and lenders cannot be compelled to accept an OTS (para 38). The appeal was dismissed. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Subhajit Leather Works v Kamal Puggal, Joint Commissioner CGST & Cx 2026-juristway.com-3317-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Subhajit Leather Works v. Kamal Puggal, Joint Commissioner CGST & CX, 2026-juristway.com-3317-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the appellant claimed refund of Rs. 9,06,045 for April 2021 to March 2022 on supplies to SEZ without payment of tax, but its GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 reported no SEZ supplies and the first appellate authority found its statements contradictory, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench held that the Rule 89(4) formula requires zero-rated supply to be correctly reported in the returns, and noted the appellant's gross negligence in omitting the supplies (paras 6–7). As the claim involved disputed facts and needed reconciliation, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded (paras 8–10). The appellant must file an invoice-wise reconciliation, invoices, shipping bills, Specified Officer endorsements and the LUT within four weeks, and the proper officer must pass a speaking order under Rule 92 within four weeks of the hearing (para 10). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed Atanu Mondal v Jhawar Suppliers 2026-juristway.com-3316-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Atanu Mondal v. Jhawar Suppliers, 2026-juristway.com-3316-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the taxpayer, unable to use the ACES portal, paid the service tax appeal pre-deposit of Rs. 1,10,510 for FY 2015-16 through Form GST DRC-03 on 27.05.2022, paid it again through ICEGATE on 09.04.2024, won the appeal, and claimed refund of the DRC-03 amount on 03.10.2024, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench held that Section 54 did not govern the claim. Following the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Comsol Energy (Special Civil Application No. 11905 of 2020) and decisions on duty paid under mistake of law, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the amount was a pre-deposit for a service tax appeal, not tax under the GST law, so the general law of limitation applied (para 5(I)–(V)). Relying on Suvidhe Ltd. and Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX, the Hon'ble Tribunal also held unjust enrichment inapplicable (para 5(VI)). The order-in-appeal allowing the refund was upheld and the Revenue's appeal rejected (para 5(VII)). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Bengal Spare Parts Supply v M Rahaman, Commissioner of CGST & CX Howrah Commissionerate 2026-juristway.com-3315-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Bengal Spare Parts Supply v. M Rahaman, Commissioner of CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate, 2026-juristway.com-3315-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where an audit notice under Section 74 for FY 2017-18 to FY 2019-20 alleged tax short paid on supplies found in the profit and loss account, the appellant had paid Rs. 19,14,473 before the notice, and the first appellate authority dropped Section 74 only for FY 2017-18 because the accounts for that year alone had been uploaded, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench held that Section 74 failed for the later years too. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Steel Limited, the Hon'ble Tribunal noted that the discrepancy came only from the appellant's own documents, that the appellant was exempt from filing GSTR-9C, and that non-payment before audit is not wilful suppression (paras 8–13). The Section 74 action was quashed, FY 2017-18 was held time-barred, and the matter for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 was remanded for redetermination under Section 73 through Section 75(2), with liberty to seek the benefit of Section 128A (paras 14–15). SC ● Dismissed M/s. Om Siddh Vinayak Impex Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs. 2026-juristway.com-3372-SC-Customs 05 November 2026 In Om Siddh Vinayak Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2026-juristway.com-3372-SC-Customs , the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay and found no error of law in the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Customs Appeal No. C/11604/2016-DB (paras 1–3). Noting that the issue of the Letter of Permission and the unit being within an SEZ had been remitted to the authority, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the appellant to adduce evidence there, kept all contentions open and disposed of the appeal (paras 4–8). CESTAT · Kolkata ● Allowed M/s. Sicuro Glasstein Private Limited v Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata 2026-juristway.com-3371-CESTAT(Kolkata)-Customs 05 November 2026 In Sicuro Glasstein Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, 2026-juristway.com-3371-CESTAT(Kolkata)-Customs , where clear float glass imported from Malaysia was reassessed from CTI 7005 1090 to CTI 7005 2990 and the nil rate under Sl. No. 934 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. was denied, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata restored the self-assessed classification. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that the supplier's Certificate of Analysis and technical literature showing non-wired glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting tin layer stood unrebutted, as the outcome of the CSIR test was never produced (paras 10–11). It held that Circular No. 23/2024-Customs dated 14.11.2024 could not apply retrospectively and followed Bagrecha Enterprises, which concerned the same supplier (paras 12–14). The appeal was allowed with consequential relief (paras 15–16). HC · Karnataka ● Dismissed Abbvie Healthcare India Private Limited v Apex Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices, Department of Pharmaceuticals, New Delhi and Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Registrar of Companies, Bengaluru 2026-juristway.com-3370-HC(Karnataka)-CORP 05 November 2026 In AbbVie Healthcare India Private Limited v. Apex Committee for Pharma Marketing Practices, 2026-juristway.com-3370-HC(Karnataka)-CORP , where the Apex Committee reprimanded the company on 23.12.2024 for sponsoring travel of 30 doctors to conferences in Paris and Monaco at a cost of Rs. 1,91,24,991, and income tax summonses and an ROC inquiry notice followed, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition, deciding four points against the company. Anonymous complaint: Clauses 10.3 and 10.4 of UCPMP 2024 bind only complaints lodged with an Association; the DOP may act on an anonymous complaint and order a special audit under Clause 10.7 (para 12.62). Ethics Committee decision: The OPPI Ethics Committee's clean chit of 20.09.2024 did not bar the Apex Committee, which acted on the DOP's independent reference and did not sit in appeal (para 13.77). Special audit and ROC notice: An audit by an internal DOP team is valid though not drawn from the Clause 14.3 panel; the ROC notice rests on Section 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, and the Registrar must form an independent view (para 14.85). Income tax summonses: The Section 131(1A) summonses were not shown to rest on the reprimand; the Apex Committee's request to the CBDT does not bind the Department (paras 15.28–15.39). Order: Petition dismissed; reply to the ROC notice within four weeks (para 16.1). SC ● Dismissed Directorate of Enforcement v Pravez Khan 2026-juristway.com-3369-SC-PMLA 05 November 2026 In Directorate of Enforcement v. Pravez Khan, 2026-juristway.com-3369-SC-PMLA , the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay and dismissed the Directorate's special leave petitions, declining to interfere with the impugned judgments of the High Court (paras 1–2). Pending applications were disposed of (para 3). CESTAT · Allahabad ● Other M/s Kundan Castings Ltd. v Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow 2026-juristway.com-3368-CESTAT(Allahabad)-CE 05 November 2026 In Kundan Castings Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow, 2026-juristway.com-3368-CESTAT(Allahabad)-CE , where the assessee's pre-deposit of Rs. 25,79,219, including Rs. 10 lakh deposited during investigation from 15.12.2012, was refunded with 6% interest under Section 35FF after the demand of Rs. 3,43,89,580 was set aside, and the assessee claimed 12%, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad noted that the issue was covered against the assessee by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Seher (paras 4.4–4.5). It nonetheless noted that the Delhi Bench, recording divergent views among Benches, had referred the questions of rate and commencement of interest on voluntary and involuntary deposits to a Larger Bench (para 4.5). The matter was referred to the Hon'ble President for tagging with the reference in Marudhar Construction (para 5.1). CESTAT · Chandigarh ● Allowed M/s Chiripal Poly Films Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana 2026-juristway.com-3327-CESTAT(Chandigarh)-Customs 05 November 2026 In Chiripal Poly Films Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, 2026-juristway.com-3327-CESTAT(Chandigarh)-Customs , where spools for an aluminium foil rolling mill imported under EPCG authorisation were reclassified from Heading 8455 to Heading 7326 and the exemption denied, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh held that the exemption was available irrespective of classification. The notification adopts the definition of capital goods in para 11.08 of the Foreign Trade Policy, the spools were not in the negative list in Appendix-5F, and Customs had neither referred the matter to the DGFT nor had the authorisation modified (paras 5.1–5.2). Following JSW Steel and Jindal Stainless, it held that the exclusion of "spools" in Note 1(c) to Section XVI covers supports for material, not essential machine parts, but found it unnecessary to decide classification (para 5.3). With the exemption available, mis-declaration fell away and the demand, penalty and redemption fine were set aside (paras 5.3, 6). CESTAT · Kolkata ● Allowed M/s. Medical Research Foundation Aditya Birla Sankara Netharalaya v Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South 2026-juristway.com-3326-CESTAT(Kolkata)-CE 05 November 2026 In Medical Research Foundation v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South, 2026-juristway.com-3326-CESTAT(Kolkata)-CE , where duty of Rs. 14,21,647 was demanded under the extended period on spectacles assembled by fitting lenses into frames, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata held that the issue is no longer res integra (para 3). Following the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Titan Company, which applied the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Mehta Opticians, the Hon'ble Tribunal set aside the demand and allowed the appeal with consequential relief (paras 3–4). CESTAT · Chennai ● Partly Allowed M/s. Acer India (Private) Limited v Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry 2026-juristway.com-3325-CESTAT(Chennai)-CE 05 November 2026 In Acer India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry, 2026-juristway.com-3325-CESTAT(Chennai)-CE , where a computer manufacturer imported components without SAD under end-use exemptions and sent between 0.55% and 1.60% of them to its service centres for free warranty replacement, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai partly allowed the appeal, deciding five issues. Exemption (for the Revenue): Warranty replacement is not use in manufacture; the separate warranty limb in Rule 2(k)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules confirms this, and intended-use precedents do not protect deliberate diversion (paras 17–23). Limitation (for the Revenue): Following Gujarat Ambuja Exports, a recovery under Rule 8 is governed by a reasonable period, not by Section 28; the notice of 06.04.2016, issued within a year of the audit query, was in time (paras 24–29). Intent to evade (for the taxpayer): The exercise was wholly revenue neutral, as SAD was creditable and the second proviso to Rule 3(5) dispensed with reversal on warranty removals; intent was not proved (paras 30–34). Credit (for the taxpayer): TR-6 challans qualify under Rule 9(1)(b), whose exception is not attracted (paras 35–38). Interest and penalties: Interest of Rs. 36,57,166 under Rule 8 runs from importation and was upheld; penalties under Section 114A and Rule 15 were set aside (paras 40–44). Order: SAD and interest upheld (Rs. 5,61,264 already paid to be adjusted); credit allowed; both penalties of Rs. 1,15,69,622 set aside (para 46). CESTAT · New Delhi ● Allowed Shri Bilesh Jain, Proprietor, M/s Delhi Marketing, M/s Kundan Cab Pvt. Ltd., Shri Dinesh Jain, Director, M/s Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Shri Paras Mal Jain, Director, M/s Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., M/s Delhi Marketing v Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Delhi East 2026-juristway.com-3324-CESTAT(New Delhi)-CE 05 November 2026 In Bilesh Jain v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Delhi East, 2026-juristway.com-3324-CESTAT(New Delhi)-CE , where searches in February 2011 led to seizure of goods valued at over Rs. 6.25 crores and cash from three electrical goods concerns and their directors, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi allowed all appeals, deciding four issues in the appellants' favour. Delhi Marketing (manufacture): The premises had no electricity, machinery or manufacturing infrastructure, and no job worker was examined; a job worker, if any, would be the manufacturer, so the duty, confiscation and redemption fine of Rs. 1,85,00,000 fall (paras 19–20). Balar Marketing (excess stock and cash): The unrecorded goods were not shown to be finished goods requiring RG-1 entry and were later cleared on duty payment; the seized cash was explained by the cash book and a sale agreement (para 21). Kundan Cab (re-packing and MRP stickers): Duty of Rs. 3,14,497 had been paid by the supplier on MRP-based goods whose assessable value did not change, so the situation was revenue neutral (para 22). Penalties: With the main demands gone, no penalty survived on the directors or proprietor (para 23). CESTAT · New Delhi ● Allowed M/s Consulting Engineers Group Ltd. v Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST Commissionerate, Jaipur 2026-juristway.com-3323-CESTAT(New Delhi)-ST 05 November 2026 In Consulting Engineers Group Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, 2026-juristway.com-3323-CESTAT(New Delhi)-ST , where a company providing consulting engineering services to NHAI paid tax on staff remuneration but not on reimbursed heads such as travel, rent, utilities and printing, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi rejected the plea that bodies corporate were outside the levy before 2005, following the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation (para 9). It accepted, however, that the dispute related only to reimbursable expenses, which could not be taxed for the period before 2015 in view of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (paras 10–11). The demand of Rs. 63,07,016 confirmed in remand proceedings was set aside and the appeal allowed (para 12). Load more
