https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367185 The Tribunal classified the services provided by the appellant as "Supply of Tangible Goods for Use" instead of "Aircraft Operator Service" due to the appellant retaining control and possession of the aircraft. The demand for service tax was confirmed but limited to the normal one-year period as the extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified, as there was no evidence of wilful suppression by the appellant. The appeal was allowed in part, with the demand restricted to the one-year normal period. en-us Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367185 The Tribunal classified the services provided by the appellant as "Supply of Tangible Goods for Use" instead of "Aircraft Operator Service" due to the appellant retaining control and possession of the aircraft. The demand for service tax was confirmed but limited to the normal one-year period as the extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified, as there was no evidence of wilful suppression by the appellant. The appeal was allowed in part, with the demand restricted to the one-year normal period. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367185