https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360047 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the demand for Service Tax under the category of "Supply of Tangible Goods Service" was unsustainable. It was determined that the possession and effective control of the goods had been transferred to the lessees, contradicting the criteria for classification under the said service. Additionally, the demand for the extended period was deemed time-barred as there were no allegations of suppression or fraud in the show-cause notice, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal. en-us Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360047 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the demand for Service Tax under the category of "Supply of Tangible Goods Service" was unsustainable. It was determined that the possession and effective control of the goods had been transferred to the lessees, contradicting the criteria for classification under the said service. Additionally, the demand for the extended period was deemed time-barred as there were no allegations of suppression or fraud in the show-cause notice, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360047