The CESTAT held that the contract for cash van services...

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.