Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The CESTAT held that the contract for cash van services constituted supply of tangible goods service rather than a transfer of right to use goods, thereby attracting service tax and not deemed sale. The appellant failed to disclose the provision of such services, obtain service tax registration, or file returns, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation for assessment. The plea for cum duty benefit was allowed, as the agreement stipulated that service tax would not be separately paid, implying its inclusion in the service value. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-quantify the service tax liability with cum duty benefit, and consequential interest and penalty within eight weeks. The appeal was partly allowed by remand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
