This compilation indexes twelve High Court rulings delivered between February 2026 and September 2026, all filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The cases span the Delhi, Patna, Gujarat, Telangana, Karnataka, Madras, and Calcutta High Courts, and address a range of disputes including service tax levies, CENVAT credit claims, manufacture classification, refund entitlements, and penalty imposition — all originating from orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). This index is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who track the appellate journey of central excise and service tax matters through the High Court tier.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference compiled from source court documents. It does not constitute legal advice, tax advice, or any form of professional opinion. Readers must verify all rulings against the original judgments and check for subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on them.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for appeals to the High Court from orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Such an appeal lies only on a substantial question of law, and the High Court is required to formulate the question(s) at the time of admission. The appeal must ordinarily be filed within one hundred and eighty days of the date of the CESTAT order, though the High Court retains discretion to condone delay where sufficient cause is shown. The provision operates as the principal statutory gateway for High Court scrutiny of CESTAT decisions in central excise and related service tax matters; it is applied to service tax appeals through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, which incorporates several provisions of the Central Excise Act, including Section 35G, by reference.

The 12 rulings

1. Hospitech Management Consultants Pvt vs Principal Commissioner Ofcentral

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 1 September 2026
Sections engaged: 35G, 73(1), 77, 78, 80, 83
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging a CESTAT Final Order dated 15.05.2023 whereby levy of service tax for the normal period of limitation along with interest was upheld. The appellant additionally challenged a CESTAT Miscellaneous Order dated 30.06.2023, wherein a reduced penalty was imposed on the appellant. The originating adjudication order, passed on 31.03.2014, had raised a demand of service tax of Rs. 65,75,890/- along with interest, per the source preview.

2. Commissioner Of Central GST And Excise vs M/S Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 24 July 2026
Sections engaged: 35G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Patna-II, questioning the legality and correctness of Final Order No. 76870/2019, dated 11.12.2019, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, in Excise Appeal No. 76323. The matter was heard and decided on 24 July 2026 as a CAV judgment, per the source preview.

3. M/S Seher vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 7 July 2026
Sections engaged: 35F, 35G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal arose from show cause notices proposing recovery of service tax aggregating to Rs. 1,19,21,936/- along with applicable interest and penalty; proceedings had culminated in an Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2016 confirming the demand. The CESTAT, by its Final Order dated 13.06.2022, allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the demand along with consequential interest and penalty. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund application dated 17.01.2023 seeking refund of Rs. 30,54,449/- deposited during the course of investigation, which was sanctioned, and interest on the refunded amount was thereafter granted by an Order-in-Original dated 24.05.2024, per the source preview.

4. The Commissioner Of Central Excise & vs Essar Heavy Engineering Services

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 29 June 2026
Sections engaged: 35G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Revenue, raising substantial questions of law arising from an order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, in Appeal No. E/11021/2013-DB. Per the source preview, the Tax Appeal had been kept pending for admission because the CESTAT, while passing the impugned order, had referred to and relied upon an order passed by the Gujarat High Court; the matter was taken up for an oral order on 29 June 2026.

5. The Commissioner Of Central Tax And vs Ws Zoom Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 20 April 2026
Sections engaged: 35G, 35L
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging a CESTAT, Hyderabad order dated 11.09.2025. The central contention of the appellant was that the nature of the transaction involved — being the right to use information technology software for commercial exploitation — fell within the definition of Information Technology Software Service under the Finance Act, 1994, and the question of law sought to be raised was whether the respondent's transactions would amount to a sale or a service, per the source preview.

6. M/S. Karnataka Agro Chemicals vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 17 April 2026
Sections engaged: 35G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the matter was reserved on 12.03.2026 and pronounced on 17.04.2026. Per the source preview, the court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside Final Order Nos. 21456 to 21479 to the extent indicated; no order as to costs was made.

7. The Principal Commissioner Of Central vs Mphasis Ltd

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 9 April 2026
Sections engaged: 35G, 66A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, arising out of Final Order No. 20057/2024 dated 19.01.2024 passed by the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru. The Revenue prayed for the appeal to be allowed, the questions of law as framed to be decided in favour of the appellant, and the impugned CESTAT final order to be set aside, per the source preview.

8. M/S.Sanmar Matrix Matrix Metals Ltd vs The Commissioner Of GST And Central

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 8 April 2026
Sections engaged: 35G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The statutory appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against Final Order No. 42294/2021 dated 08.09.2021 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. Per the source preview, the appellant was an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 who had migrated to the GST regime after its introduction, and had availed CENVAT credit in respect of excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid thereon; the matter was reserved on 02.04.2026 and pronounced on 08.04.2026.

9. Virchow Laboratories Limited vs The Commissioner O0Fcustoms And

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 26 March 2026
Sections engaged: 11B, 35G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed against common final order Nos. 576 & 577/2011, dated 17.08.2011, passed by the CESTAT, South Zone Bench, Bangalore, in Appeal No. E/1124/2006. Per the source preview, the appellant — a company engaged in the manufacture and export of bulk drugs — was directed by the jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent in January 1997 to pay Rs. 31,52,256/- on the ground of alleged violation of a Customs notification; the appellant deposited the amount under protest on 31.01.1997 and thereafter filed a refund claim on the basis that the amount was not liable to be paid.

10. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Patna vs M/S Dadiji Steels Limited

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 18 March 2026
Sections engaged: 35G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was heard as part of a batch of miscellaneous appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including Miscellaneous Appeal No. 376 of 2019, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 55 of 2024, and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 310 of 2024, involving multiple appellants and respondents before the Patna High Court. Per the source preview, the matters involved the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Patna in several of the appeals, and one appeal involved a matter relating to customs, per the source preview.

11. South Commissionerate vs M/S. Mine Line Private Limited

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 16 February 2026
Sections engaged: 2(f), 35G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with the Central Excise Department suggesting substantial questions of law, including whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the activity carried out by the respondent with regard to bought-out items amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the impugned Tribunal order is perverse and bad in law. The source preview also records the court noting the statutory provision permitting admission of an appeal after the expiry of one hundred and eighty days where sufficient cause is shown.

12. Naresh Kumar & Co vs Commissioner

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 4 February 2026
Sections engaged: 35G, 73
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (CEXA 49 of 2009) was filed under the special jurisdiction (Central Excise) of the Calcutta High Court, with the hearing concluded on 2 February 2026 and judgment delivered on 4 February 2026. Per the source preview, the matter involved service tax demands spanning multiple heads — including clearing and forwarding services, direct expenses, bending and bundling services, and stock verification services — across periods from September 1999 through March 2004, with aggregate claimed amounts running across several line items.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 35G as the near-universal procedural vehicle. Every case in this compilation was filed through Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, either directly or (in service tax matters) via the cross-reference in Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. This confirms Section 35G as the dominant statutory channel through which CESTAT orders reach the High Court tier across all excise and service tax categories.
Geographic spread with no single dominant forum. The twelve rulings span seven different High Courts — Delhi, Patna, Gujarat, Telangana, Karnataka, Madras, and Calcutta — indicating that Section 35G appeals continue to be actively pursued across all major jurisdictions, and that no single High Court dominates the appellate landscape for these disputes.
Revenue as appellant in a significant proportion of cases. In several of these appeals — including cases 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 11 — the Revenue (Commissioner / Principal Commissioner) is the appellant, indicating that the Department actively uses Section 35G to challenge CESTAT orders that have been decided in favour of assesses.
Service tax and excise disputes frequently co-exist. Multiple cases in this compilation involve service tax demands (cases 1, 3, 12) alongside pure central excise matters, reflecting the transitional period in which legacy service tax and excise disputes continue to be litigated well into 2026, even after the introduction of GST.
Substantive questions of law range widely. Across the available previews, the substantial questions of law framed or sought to be framed cover manufacture classification (case 11), classification of software transactions as sale or service (case 5), CENVAT credit entitlement (case 8), refund rights after a successful CESTAT appeal (case 3), and the correctness of CESTAT orders on penalty (case 1) — illustrating that Section 35G proceedings are used to agitate a broad spectrum of excise and service tax issues.

How to use this compilation

This index is intended as a starting point for legal and tax research — not an end point. Each entry identifies the case by the parties as recorded in the source court document, the bench, the date of order, the sections engaged, and the procedural or substantive ground as appearing in the available text preview. Because several of the text previews are procedural in nature and do not disclose the final holding in full, researchers should obtain and read the complete judgment before drawing any conclusions about the ratio decidendi or the court's final direction.

Before relying on any ruling listed here, researchers should verify whether the judgment has been subsequently stayed, appealed to the Supreme Court, or reversed in further proceedings. The high court tier in central excise and service tax matters is an intermediate appellate stage; orders can be challenged by special leave petitions before the Supreme Court. Additionally, readers should check whether any relevant CBIC circular, notification, or instruction has been issued subsequent to the judgment that may affect the practical significance of the ruling in a specific fact scenario.

Finally, note that all twelve cases in this compilation arise from the Central Excise Act, 1944 regime (including service tax matters under the Finance Act, 1994) — not from the Goods and Services Tax Acts. The legal framework, including the definitions and penalty provisions cited in these rulings, is specific to that regime. Researchers working on GST disputes should not assume that the principles articulated in these cases automatically carry forward into the GST statutory structure without independent verification.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 35G Central Excise Act: 12 High Court Rulings (2026)