Lexport weekly newsletter will cover updates from RBI, FEMA, Foreign Trade, Corporate Laws, Securities Laws and Capital Markets, Competition Laws,

Lexport weekly newsletter will cover updates from RBI, FEMA, Foreign Trade, Corporate Laws, Securities Laws and Capital Markets, Competition Laws,

Lexport weekly newsletter will cover updates from RBI, FEMA, Foreign Trade, Corporate Laws, Securities Laws and Capital Markets, Competition Laws,

Lexport weekly newsletter will cover updates from RBI, FEMA, Foreign Trade, Corporate Laws, Securities Laws and Capital Markets, Competition Laws,

LEXPORT NEWSLETTER

OCTOBER 2025 | WEEK 1

© 2025 - 26,

LEXPORT NEWSLETTER

MARCH 2026 | WEEK 4

Dear Readers,

This weekly newsletter offers you a concise analysis of important developments, notable judgments, and noteworthy

regulatory amendments and developments in the corporate and financial sectors.

This newsletter will cover updates inter alia from Banking Laws & FEMA, Corporate Laws, Securities Laws and

Capital Markets, Competition Laws, Indirect Taxes, Customs and Foreign Trade, Intellectual Property Laws, and

Arbitration Laws.

Acknowledging the significance of these updates and the need to stay informed, this newsletter provides a concise

overview of the various changes brought in by our proactive regulatory authorities and the courts.

Feedback and suggestions will be much appreciated. Please feel free to write to us at mail@lexport.in.

Regards,

Team Lexport

Disclaimer

The information contained in this Newsletter is for general purposes only and Lexport is not, by means of this

newsletter, rendering legal, tax, accounting, business, financial, investment or any other professional advice or

services. This material is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for

any decision or action that may affect your business. Further, before making any decision or taking any action that

may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. Lexport shall not be responsible for

any loss sustained by any person who relies on this newsletter. Hyperlinks to third party websites provided herein are

for bona fide information purposes only, and must not be construed to be indicative of any formal relationship

between Lexport and such third parties.

Shelly Singh

Excise Duty Exemption Notifications Based On

“Intended Use” Must Be Liberally Construed In

Favour Of Assessee : Supreme Court

Cause Title: M/S. RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS

AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND

SERVICE TAX (LTU)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 295

The Supreme Court has held that excise exemption

notifications based on “use” or “intended use” must

be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee, and

incidental or ancillary use does not defeat the

exemption.

The case involved Rashtriya Chemicals and

Fertilizers Limited, which procured Naphtha at nil

duty for use in manufacturing fertilizer and

ammonia. The Revenue denied exemption on the

ground that a portion of the steam generated using

such Naphtha was used for non-fertilizer purposes,

including electricity supplied outside.

The Court rejected this approach and held that the

dominant purpose of procurement is the decisive

factor. It observed that in integrated industrial

processes, precise tracing input usage is often

impractical, and incidental diversion cannot be a

ground to deny exemption.

The Court emphasised that once the assessee

establishes that the goods were procured with the

intended use in eligible manufacturing activity,

exemption cannot be denied merely because a

fraction is used elsewhere. The inability to segregate

exact consumption, particularly in common utility

systems such as steam generation, does not dilute

eligibility.

Relying on settled principles, the Court reiterated

that beneficial exemption notifications linked to

usage must receive a purposive and liberal

interpretation.

Accordingly, the excise duty demand was set aside

and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Indirect Tax

2

LEXPORT NEWSLETTER

MARCH 2026 | WEEK 4

Shelly Singh

Central Excise Amendments Rationalise Duty

Rates on Petroleum Products

NOTIFICATION NO. 05/2026–CENTRAL

EXCISE

The Government has issued Notification No.

05/2026-Central Excise dated 26 March 2026,

amending the earlier Notification No. 05/2019 to

revise excise duty rates on specified petroleum

products.

Under the amended framework, the duty structure

has been rationalised by substituting the rate for one

category to Rs. 3 per litre while prescribing Nil rate

for another specified entry. The notification further

clarifies that the benefit or applicability of the

notification shall not extend to goods cleared for

export, thereby ensuring that export consignments

remain outside the scope of the revised levy.

In addition, Notification No. 06/2026-Central Excise

introduces changes in special additional excise duty

on petroleum products. Notably, motor spirit (petrol)

is exempted with Nil rate, whereas high-speed diesel

oil attracts a specified rate of Rs. 18.5 per litre. The

notification also carves out exceptions, including

supplies meant for export and specified cross-border

supplies by public sector oil companies to

neighbouring countries.

Both notifications have been issued under Section

5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section

147 of the Finance Act, 2002, and have come into

force with immediate effect.

These amendments reflect a calibrated approach

toward revenue alignment and sector-specific relief

in the petroleum segment.

Indirect Tax

3

LEXPORT NEWSLETTER

MARCH 2026 | WEEK 4

Shelly Singh

Supreme Court: Non-Compliance with Section 50

NDPS Vitiates Entire Trial

CASE TITLE: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Versus SURAT SINGH

CITATION: (2026) 40 Centax 267 (S.C.)

The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal and

upheld the acquittal of the accused, holding that non-

compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates

the entire trial.

The case arose from recovery of charas from a bag

carried by the accused, following which both the

Trial Court convicted him and the High Court

acquitted him. The prosecution argued that the

recovery was valid and Section 50 was not strictly

violated.

However, the Court noted that the accused was given

three options for search: before a Magistrate, a

Gazetted Officer, or before a police officer in the

presence of witnesses. This, the Court held, is

contrary to Section 50, which mandates that the

accused must be informed of the right to be searched

only before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.

The Court emphasised that introducing a third option

dilutes the statutory safeguard and renders the

consent invalid. Such deviation strikes at the root of

procedural fairness and vitiates the recovery.

Additionally, inconsistencies in prosecution

evidence, including doubts regarding the weighing

of contraband, further weakened the case.

Upholding the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme

Court reiterated that strict compliance with

procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act is

mandatory.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the

acquittal of the accused was affirmed.

Indirect Tax

4

LEXPORT NEWSLETTER

MARCH 2026 | WEEK 4

Shelly Singh

CESTAT: Interactive Flat Panels Classifiable as

ADP Machines, Revenue Appeal Dismissed

CASE TITLE: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NEW DELHI Versus

GLOBUS INFOCOM LTD.

CITATION: (2026) 40 Centax 209 (Tri.-Del)

The CESTAT, New Delhi has held that Interactive

Flat Panels (IFPs) are classifiable as automatic data

processing (ADP) machines under Tariff Item 8471

41 90, and not under Heading 8528 as contended by

the Revenue.

The dispute arose regarding classification of

imported LED display panels used as interactive flat

panels. While the importer classified the goods under

Heading 8471 as ADP machines, the Department

sought classification under Heading 8528 as display

units.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was already settled

in its earlier decision in Ingram Micro India Pvt.

Ltd., wherein identical goods were held to be

classifiable under Heading 8471. It observed that the

Principal Commissioner had correctly followed this

binding precedent.

The Revenue’s appeal was primarily based on an

internal departmental note directing classification

under Heading 8528 pending appeal against certain

advance rulings. The Tribunal rejected this approach,

holding that administrative instructions cannot

override binding judicial precedents.

Terming the appeal as “frivolous,” the Tribunal

emphasised that the Department failed to distinguish

or challenge the applicability of the earlier decision.

Accordingly, the classification under Tariff Item

8471 41 90 was upheld, and the appeal filed by the

Revenue was dismissed in favour of the assessee.

Indirect Tax

5

LEXPORT NEWSLETTER

MARCH 2026 | WEEK 4

Shelly Singh

Limitation period for filing appeal would start

from actual communication of order and not

from date of dispatch: CESTA

CASE TITLE: MANJINDER SINGH G.S.

CONTRACTOR Versus COMMISSIONER OF

CENTRAL EXCISE AND GOODS & SERVICE

TAX, LUDHIANA

CITATION: (2025) 37 Centax 266 (Tri.-Chan)

The CESTAT, Chandigarh has held that the

limitation period for filing an appeal commences

from the date of actual communication of the order

and not from the date of its dispatch.

The case involved rejection of an appeal by the

Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred, on the

ground that the Order-in-Original was dispatched via

speed post on 11.03.2023. The appellant contended

that the order was never received and was only

handed over on 20.12.2023 following a recovery

notice, after which the appeal was filed within the

prescribed time.

The Tribunal noted that the Department failed to

produce any evidence of actual delivery of the order.

Mere proof of dispatch, without proof of service,

cannot trigger the limitation period.

It was observed that the Commissioner (Appeals)

erred in equating dispatch with communication,

which is contrary to statutory requirements under

Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with

Section 37C of the Central Excise Act.

Holding the impugned order unsustainable, the

Tribunal set it aside and remanded the matter for

decision on merits after affording an opportunity of

hearing.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed by way of

remand in favour of the assessee.

Indirect Tax

6

LEXPORT NEWSLETTER

MARCH 2026 | WEEK 4

Shelly Singh

CESTAT: Processed Manganese Ore Treated as

Concentrate, CVD Exemption Denied

CASE TITLE: HIRA POWER & STEELS LTD.

Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,

VISAKHAPATNAM

CITATION: (2026) 40 Centax 18 (Tri.-Hyd)

The CESTAT, Hyderabad has held that manganese

ore subjected to processes such as washing,

screening, and sizing prior to import amounts to

“concentrate,” thereby rendering it a distinct

excisable product and ineligible for CVD exemption

under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E.

The appellants imported manganese ore and claimed

exemption from countervailing duty on the ground

that the goods were “ores.” The Department

contended that the goods had undergone processing,

resulting in concentrates, which are excluded from

the exemption.

The Tribunal observed that the imported goods were

not run-of-mine ore but had undergone multiple

processes including removal of impurities and

sizing. Relying on Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26, it

held that conversion of ore into concentrate is

deemed “manufacture,” resulting in a distinct

commodity.

It further noted that even simple processes such as

washing and screening, when undertaken to remove

foreign matter or improve quality, can amount to

beneficiation and lead to emergence of concentrates.

Rejecting reliance on earlier decisions, the Tribunal

followed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Star

Industries, emphasizing that exemption notifications

must be strictly construed and apply only to “ores,”

not concentrates.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appellants

were not entitled to exemption and upheld the

demand of duty and interest.

The appeals were dismissed in favour of the

Revenue.

Indirect Tax

7

LEXPORT NEWSLETTER

MARCH 2026 | WEEK 4

Shelly Singh

Bombay High Court: Cash Seizure Under GST

Without “Reason to Believe” Held Illegal

CASE TITLE: SMURTI WAGHDHARE Versus

JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL

OF GST INTELLIGENCE, MUMBAI

CITATION: (2026) 40 Centax 256 (Bom.)

The Bombay High Court has held that seizure of

cash during GST search proceedings, without

recording “reasons to believe” and without following

statutory safeguards, is illegal and without authority

of law.

The petitioner, a GST-registered trader, was

subjected to search operations wherein cash

amounting to ₹1 crore was seized from her premises

and her parents’ residence. The Department justified

the seizure on allegations of involvement in a fake

ITC racket.

The Court examined Section 67(2) of the CGST Act

and emphasized that the power of search and seizure

is conditional upon the existence of a duly recorded

“reason to believe” that goods, documents, or things

are liable to confiscation or relevant to proceedings.

In the present case, no such reasons were recorded ,

rendering the action fundamentally defective.

It was further held that cash does not ordinarily fall

within the ambit of “goods” or “things” liable for

seizure under the provision, particularly when its

relevance to proceedings is not established.

Additionally, the statutory mandate under Section

67(7) was violated as no notice was issued within six

months of seizure.

The Court also found fault with the Department’s act

of transferring the seized cash to the Income Tax

authorities, noting absence of any enabling provision

under the CGST framework.

Accordingly, the impugned seizure orders were

quashed, and the authorities were directed to release

the cash along with applicable interest.

Indirect Tax

8

LEXPORT NEWSLETTER

MARCH 2026 | WEEK 4

Shelly Singh

Bombay High Court: GST Registration Restored;

Recovery Deferred Pending SCN Adjudication

CASE TITLE: BI-CHEM INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus

UNION OF INDIA

CITATION: (2026) 40 Centax 276 (Bom.)

The Bombay High Court has held that suspension of

GST registration cannot be sustained where due

process is not followed, and that coercive recovery

cannot proceed prior to adjudication of the show

cause notice.

The petitioner challenged the suspension of its GST

registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act,

along with a recovery notice and provisional

attachment of bank accounts. During the course of

hearing, the Revenue conceded that the suspension

would be withdrawn and the registration restored.

The Court accepted this statement and directed

immediate restoration of registration.

The Court further emphasized that any adverse

action, including cancellation of registration or

recovery of dues, must strictly follow principles of

natural justice. It directed that the petitioner be

granted a proper opportunity of hearing on the show

cause notice, with liberty to submit documents and

representations.

Significantly, the Court held that the recovery notice

could not be acted upon until due adjudication is

completed. Authorities were directed to first pass a

reasoned order after considering the petitioner’s

response, before initiating any recovery proceedings.

The ruling reinforces that suspension and recovery

under GST cannot operate mechanically and must be

preceded by procedural safeguards.

The petition was disposed of in favour of the

assessee.

Indirect Tax

9

LEXPORT NEWSLETTER

MARCH 2026 | WEEK 4