<?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: 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>
<item>
<title>Scope of Rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act is Confined to Errors Apparent on the Face of Record</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/scope-of-rectification-under-section-161-of-the-cgst-act-is-confined-to-errors-apparent-on-the-face-of-record-6110.asp</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Sep 2026 10:20:46 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Scals Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer [W.P. No. 22391 of 2026 dated June 23, 2026] upheld the rejection of the rectification application filed under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( “the CGST Act” ) insofar as it pertained to un]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>Appellate Authority has no power to condone delay in filing appeal beyond the outer limit prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/appellate-authority-has-no-power-to-condone-delay-in-filing-appeal-beyond-the-outer-limit-prescribed-under-section-107-4-of-the-cgst-act-6109.asp</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Sep 2026 10:02:05 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The Hon’ble Orissa High Court in M/s. Sri Balaji Metallics Private Limited v. Commissioner of CT & GST, Cuttack and Others [W.P.(C) No. 7208 of 2025 dated March 12, 2026] dismissed the writ petition filed against the rejection of a time-barred appeal, thereby holding that where the Assessee itself d]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>CESTAT New Delhi: Sub-Contractor Separately Liable for Service Tax Regardless of Main Contractor's Discharge</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/cestat-new-delhi-sub-contractor-separately-liable-for-service-tax-regardless-of-main-contractor-s-discharge-6108.asp</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 1 Sep 2026 15:16:32 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has ruled that a sub-contractor remains individually liable to discharge service tax obligations for taxable services rendered, irrespective of whether the main contractor has discharged the tax on the overall project value. T]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
<item>
<title>CESTAT: Service Tax Not Leviable on Unclaimed Amounts Written Off Without Evidence of Taxable Service</title>
<link>https://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/cestat-service-tax-not-leviable-on-unclaimed-amounts-written-off-without-evidence-of-taxable-service-6107.asp</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 1 Sep 2026 15:16:31 GMT</pubDate>
<description>
<![CDATA[
M/s National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, JaipurCESTAT New Delhi]]>
</description>
<author>CCI Team</author>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
