<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title> CAclubindia.com : judiciary</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/</link>
<generator>https://www.caclubindia.com/</generator>
<item>
<title>CESTAT: Service Tax Demand Based Solely on ITR Data Unsustainable; 40% Valuation Applicable to Original Works Contract</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/cestat-service-tax-demand-based-solely-on-itr-data-unsustainable-40-valuation-applicable-to-original-works-contract-6120.asp</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:45:42 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The CESTAT, Allahabad, in M/s Abhishek Construction v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Noida, Final Order No. 70402/2026 dated 16 September 2026, set aside the service tax demand and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>CESTAT: Renting Vehicles on Per-Trip Basis Not Taxable as Supply of Tangible Goods</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/cestat-renting-vehicles-on-per-trip-basis-not-taxable-as-supply-of-tangible-goods-6119.asp</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:45:41 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad, in Universal Distributors v. C.C.E. & S.T., Vadodara-I, Final Order No. 10748/2026 dated 15 September 2026, set aside a service tax demand of ₹8,44,162 raised under the category of “Supply of Tangible Goods Service.”]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Merely on Form 26AS; Renting of Residential Hostel Held Non-Taxable</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/cestat-quashes-service-tax-demand-based-merely-on-form-26as-renting-of-residential-hostel-held-non-taxable-6118.asp</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:45:40 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, allowed the appeal filed by Ms. Anju Makhija and set aside the service tax demand of ₹19.72 lakh along with applicable interest and penalties. The demand for the period 2013-14 to 2015-16 was primarily based on income reflecte]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>CESTAT Denies Refund of Ocean Freight Service Tax Claim Filed Beyond Limitation</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/cestat-denies-refund-of-ocean-freight-service-tax-claim-filed-beyond-limitation-6117.asp</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:45:40 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. JK Tyre and Industries Ltd., upholding the rejection of its refund claim of ₹22.07 lakh, comprising service tax of ₹18.73 lakh and interest of ₹3.34 lakh paid on ocean freight under the rever]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>CESTAT: Late Payment Charges in the Nature of Interest Not Taxable as Declared Service</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/cestat-late-payment-charges-in-the-nature-of-interest-not-taxable-as-declared-service-6116.asp</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:26:32 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad, in Inox Air Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Surat, pronounced on 8 September 2026, examined whether late payment charges received by the assessee on supplies of industrial gases constituted a “declared service” under Section 66E of the Finance Act,]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>CESTAT: Rajasthan Sales Tax Subsidy under RIPS 2010 Not includible in Excise Assessable Value</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/cestat-rajasthan-sales-tax-subsidy-under-rips-2010-not-includible-in-excise-assessable-value-6115.asp</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:26:32 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, in M/s. Mangalam Cement Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur, decided on 1 September 2026, held that the sales tax subsidy received under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme (RIPS), 2010 is not inclu]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>CESTAT: Educational Services Exempt Under Section 66D; Extended Period Cannot Be Invoked Without Wilful Suppression</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/cestat-educational-services-exempt-under-section-66d-extended-period-cannot-be-invoked-without-wilful-suppression-6114.asp</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:26:31 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The CESTAT, New Delhi, in Edupro E-Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Jaipur, examined the service tax liability on educational and skill-development services provided during FY 2015-16. The department had raised a demand of ₹17.59 lakh based on third-party information received from]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>CESTAT: No Service Tax on Royalty under RCM if Mining Lease Was Executed Before 1 April 2016</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/cestat-no-service-tax-on-royalty-under-rcm-if-mining-lease-was-executed-before-1-april-2016-6113.asp</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:26:30 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The CESTAT, New Delhi, in M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Udaipur, examined whether service tax was payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on royalty paid for a mining lease for the period 1 April 2016 to 13 June 2017.]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>No pre-deposit required for filing appeal before the GSTAT against penalty-only orders where proceedings commenced prior to October 01 2025</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/no-pre-deposit-required-for-filing-appeal-before-the-gstat-against-penalty-only-orders-where-proceedings-commenced-prior-to-october-01-2025-6112.asp</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Sep 2026 09:58:47 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The GSTAT, Hyderabad Bench, in the case of M/s. Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Appeal I Commissioner & Ors. [APL/623/HYD/2026 dated July 28, 2026] admitted the appeal without insisting upon payment of statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>Refund cannot be withheld under Section 54(11) of the CGST Act merely because the Revenue contemplates filing an appeal</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/refund-cannot-be-withheld-under-section-54-11-of-the-cgst-act-merely-because-the-revenue-contemplates-filing-an-appeal-6111.asp</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Sep 2026 10:20:47 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The Hon’ble Orissa High Court in M/s. Rashmi Agency v. Deputy Commissioner CT & GST & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 17470 of 2026 dated June 25, 2026] set aside the order refusing to consider the refund application filed under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( “the CGST Act” ) and hel]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
