<?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>2020 (11) TMI 14 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400259</link>
    <description>The Tribunal considered whether work wear rental constituted supply of tangible goods for service tax. The appellant argued it was a deemed sale, while the department claimed it involved leasing goods. Citing previous decisions and agreement terms, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, aligning with the Chandigarh Bench&#039;s analysis and setting aside the original order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2020 14:47:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 14 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400259</link>
      <description>The Tribunal considered whether work wear rental constituted supply of tangible goods for service tax. The appellant argued it was a deemed sale, while the department claimed it involved leasing goods. Citing previous decisions and agreement terms, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, aligning with the Chandigarh Bench&#039;s analysis and setting aside the original order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400259</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>