https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378904 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the services provided for crane hiring to ONGC did not qualify as Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The contract terms clearly indicated the hiring of cranes and operators on a monthly operational charges basis, without involvement of a third party. As the services did not meet the criteria for Business Auxiliary Service and the 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service' category was introduced after the relevant period, the demand for service tax under Business Auxiliary Service was dismissed. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected. en-us Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378904 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the services provided for crane hiring to ONGC did not qualify as Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The contract terms clearly indicated the hiring of cranes and operators on a monthly operational charges basis, without involvement of a third party. As the services did not meet the criteria for Business Auxiliary Service and the 'Supply of Tangible Goods Service' category was introduced after the relevant period, the demand for service tax under Business Auxiliary Service was dismissed. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378904