The CESTAT New Delhi in the case of Godfrey Phillips India Limited held that subscription and redemption of Mutual Fund units cannot be considered “trading of goods/securities” under Section 66D(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 as it lacks transfer of title, involves unit cancellation/relinquishment rather than sale/purchase to third party, and thus does not qualify as “exempted service”
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi issued Notification dated 01.10.2025 regarding e-filing of GSTAT
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s Vipul Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST& Central Excise, Jaipur-I[Final Order No. 50957–50958/2025, dated July 02, 2025] held that incentives/ discounts received by car dealers from manufacturers are not taxable under Business Auxiliary Service, being transactions on a principal-to-principal basis.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s Shri Vardhman Milk Dairy Pvt. Ltd. held that the activity of chilling, pasteurisation, standardisation and pouch packing of milk amounts to ‘manufacture’ under Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 4 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and therefore cannot be taxed as Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The CESTAT Delhi in the case of M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. held that lithium-ion batteries imported for manufacture of mobile phones are classifiable under Serial No. 203 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017-IGST (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, and are liable to IGST at 12%, and not at 28%/ 18% as alleged by the Department.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in Bajaj Resources Ltd. held that royalty paid towards the right to use a registered trademark constitutes a ‘deemed sale’ and is not leviable to service tax; accordingly, the demand under Section 73(1) was set aside.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. sets aside demand of service tax under ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ rendered by an Assessee to overseas counterpart on finding that benefit of ‘export of service’ is ‘wrongly’ denied.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Kanoria Energy & Infrastructure Ltd. held that an assessee may genuinely believe that duty is not leviable, while the department may believe that duty is leviable. The assessee may, therefore, not pay duty in the self-assessment carried out by the assessee, but this would not mean that the assessee has wilfully suppressed facts.
The Hon’ble CESTAT upheld that SCN issued by the department for the recovery of an ***erroneous refund***. This decision came even after the matter was ultimately held in favour of the revenue by the Hon’ble SC, despite the taxpayer having received a favourable ruling from the HC.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. MPPKVV Co. Ltd. v. GST and Central Excise Commissioner [Special Leave…
