<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (7) TMI 1671 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364363</link>
    <description>Freight paid for transporting effluents was held outside the Goods Transport Agency levy because, for service tax purposes, &quot;goods&quot; were read with the Sale of Goods Act definition and had to satisfy the marketability test; waste effluents not capable of sale were therefore not taxable as transported goods. Penalties were also held unwarranted because the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that crude oil condensate and effluents were not goods for levy purposes, the related liabilities had been discharged before the show cause notice, and part of the dispute arose from quantification. The impugned demand on effluent transportation and the connected penalties were set aside, while the conceded demands were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1671 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364363</link>
      <description>Freight paid for transporting effluents was held outside the Goods Transport Agency levy because, for service tax purposes, &quot;goods&quot; were read with the Sale of Goods Act definition and had to satisfy the marketability test; waste effluents not capable of sale were therefore not taxable as transported goods. Penalties were also held unwarranted because the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that crude oil condensate and effluents were not goods for levy purposes, the related liabilities had been discharged before the show cause notice, and part of the dispute arose from quantification. The impugned demand on effluent transportation and the connected penalties were set aside, while the conceded demands were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>