<?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>2022 (2) TMI 901 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418650</link>
    <description>Lease of railway wagons may constitute a deemed sale rather than taxable supply of tangible goods where the lessee receives possession and effective control. Relevant agreement terms included the railway&#039;s ability to use wagons in its general pool, modify them and deploy them according to its schedule. Retained ownership, insurance, repair obligations and termination rights of the lessor did not displace the transfer of effective control. Payment of VAT on lease rentals supported treatment as a transfer of the right to use goods under Article 366(29A). On that basis, service tax under the supply of tangible goods category was not attracted; CENVAT credit, extended limitation and penalties were also disputed as consequential issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 14:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670838" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 901 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418650</link>
      <description>Lease of railway wagons may constitute a deemed sale rather than taxable supply of tangible goods where the lessee receives possession and effective control. Relevant agreement terms included the railway&#039;s ability to use wagons in its general pool, modify them and deploy them according to its schedule. Retained ownership, insurance, repair obligations and termination rights of the lessor did not displace the transfer of effective control. Payment of VAT on lease rentals supported treatment as a transfer of the right to use goods under Article 366(29A). On that basis, service tax under the supply of tangible goods category was not attracted; CENVAT credit, extended limitation and penalties were also disputed as consequential issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>