Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback: 28 December 2025 To 03 Jan 2026

Here’s an Indirect Taxes weekly flashback from 28 December 2025 To 03 January 2026. Calcutta High Court Calcutta HC Condones 2,262-Day Delay Citing CESTAT’s “Hyper-Technical” Approach in SVLDRS-Linked Appeal Case Title: Shree Shyam Steel Co Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST And Central Excise Case No.: CEXA 60 OF 2024 The Calcutta High Court has condoned an extraordinary delay of 2,262 days in filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), holding that the Tribunal adopted a “hyper-technical” approach in refusing to entertain the matter on merits. RBI’s Approval for Share Allotment Against Import of Second-Hand Medical Equipment Upheld: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Sajal Dutta Versus Reserve Bank Of India And Ors. Case No.: APO 114 of 2016 The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) decision permitting the allotment of equity shares to a non-resident Indian (NRI) investor against the import of second-hand medical equipment, holding that the central bank acted within its statutory authority and in accordance with prevailing government policy. Punjab and Haryana High Court Rs. 55 Crore Service Tax Evasion Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail Case Title: Radhey Shyam and another Versus Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Hisar Case No.: CRM-M-68186-2025 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant regular bail to the Managing Director and Chairman-cum-Managing Director of a multi-level marketing company accused of large-scale service tax evasion amounting to nearly Rs. 55 crore, holding that the allegations disclose a serious economic offence affecting public revenue. Andhra Pradesh High Court Ignoring H-Forms in Export Sales Assessment Invalid: AP High Court Case Title: M/S. Chinta Subbarayudu Versus State Of AP Case No.: Writ Petition No: 14853/2023 The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a revision order passed under the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act for the assessment year 2011–12, holding that tax authorities acted arbitrarily by ignoring statutory H-declaration forms submitted to establish export sales exemption. CESTAT Customs Dept. Bound by Mandatory Timelines Under CBLR: CESTAT Restores Customs Broker Licence Case Title: M/s Secon Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 60324 of 2022 The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the suspension of a customs broker licence, holding that the Customs Department failed to strictly adhere to the mandatory timelines prescribed under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. Limitation U/S 11B Not Applicable Where Credit Accrued U/R 6(3): CESTAT Allows Indiamart’s Service Tax Refund Case Title: M/s Indiamart Intermesh Ltd. Versus Commissioner Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 50112 Of 2020 The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has allowed the appeal filed by Indiamart Intermesh, setting aside the denial of refund of excess service tax paid on subscription-based services and held that the limitation under section 11B is not applicable where credit accrued under Rule 6(3). 100% Physical Examination Found LED TVs Fully Conforming With Bill of Entry: CESTAT Quashes Undervaluation Allegations Case Title: M/s ABC Overseas Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 51455 of 2022 The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a substantial customs duty demand and penalties after holding that a 100% physical examination of imported LED TVs revealed complete conformity with the Bill of Entry, invoice, and packing list. Personal Penalty on Directors Requires Proof of ‘Knowing Involvement’: CESTAT Quashes S. 78A Penalty Case Title: Mr Ali Akbar Ratansi Versus Commissioner of CGST Mumbai West Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 85821 Of 2023 The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on a former director under Section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994, holding that the mandatory legal requirements for fastening individual liability were not satisfied. I-STAT Diagnostic Cartridges Classifiable as Accessories Under CTH 9027; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 5.06 Crore Customs Demand Case Title: M/s. Sandor Medicaids Pvt. Ltd. Versus Customs Commissioner Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 87321 of 2024 The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, has set aside a major customs demand of over Rs. 5.06 crore holding that I-STAT diagnostic cartridges imported for use with handheld blood analysers are correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9027 and not under CTH 3822. CESTAT Remands Rs. 3.90 Crore Excise Demand Against Sun Pharma Over EOU DTA Sales; Deemed Exports to Be Recounted Case Title: Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise-Vadodara-II Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 12185 of 2019-DB The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has remanded a Rs. 3.90 crore central excise duty demand raised against Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., holding that key issues relating to DTA sale entitlement, treatment of deemed exports, and product similarity require fresh examination. CESTAT Quashes Rs. 18.84 Crore Service Tax Demand on Multiplex Food Sales Case Title: M/s Cinepolis India Private Limited Versus Additional Director General (Adjudication) Case No.: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50804 OF 2021 The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi Bench, has set aside a service tax demand of over Rs. 18.84 crore raised against a leading cinema chain on the sale of food and beverages at multiplex counters. Excise Duty Demand on Dietary Supplements Upheld; CESTAT Denies Area-Based Exemption Case Title: M/s Orchid Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 51847 Of 2021 The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld a substantial excise duty demand and ruled that dietary supplements cannot be classified as pharmaceutical products and are therefore not eligible for area-based excise exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-CE. CESTAT Remands Service Tax Demand on Mining Royalty, Cites Pre-2016 Negative List Protection Case Title: Shri Chagan Lal Acharya Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise & CGST Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No.51899 of 2024 The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has remanded a service tax dispute involving levy under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on royalty paid to the Government for mining rights, holding that the issue requires fresh examination in light of settled law governing the pre-1 April 2016 regime. AAR Apple Watch Bands Classifiable as Watch Straps And Not Watch’s Part: CAAR Applicant’s Name: Apple India Private Limited Ruling Date: 23/12/2025 The Mumbai Bench of Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) has ruled that Apple Watch bands—both leather and non-leather—are classifiable as “watch straps, watch bands and watch bracelets” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9113, rejecting Apple India’s claim that the bands constitute “parts” of the Apple Watch. Read More: GST Weekly Flashback: 28 December 2025 To 03 Jan 2026

Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback: 28 December 2025 To 03 Jan 2026

Membership Required

Latest articles

Reassessment Notice Beyond Limitation Invalid Even After Excluding Assessee’s Reply Period: Delhi HC

Can Income Tax Dept. Reopen Assessment Through Rectification After Granting Immunity U/S 270AA? ITAT Says No

LTCG Deduction Be Denied Merely Because Sale Deed Was Registered After 2 Years? ITAT Says No

Can Interest Be Waived on Delayed Service Tax Payment by a Govt. Dept.? CESTAT Says No

More like this

Reassessment Notice Beyond Limitation Invalid Even After Excluding Assessee’s Reply Period: Delhi HC

Can Income Tax Dept. Reopen Assessment Through Rectification After Granting Immunity U/S 270AA? ITAT Says No

LTCG Deduction Be Denied Merely Because Sale Deed Was Registered After 2 Years? ITAT Says No

About us

Company

Categories