https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765666 CESTAT New Delhi classified first agreement as supply of tangible goods services, not cargo handling services, since appellant provided reach stackers to CONCOR for specified rates rather than handling cargo directly. For second agreement involving cargo handling operations, the tribunal remanded the matter to adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of service tax liability on export cargo handling, allowing appellant six weeks to submit additional evidence. The tribunal also directed examination of whether extended limitation period was properly invoked. Appeal was partially allowed through remand. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Feb 2025 08:38:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765666 CESTAT New Delhi classified first agreement as supply of tangible goods services, not cargo handling services, since appellant provided reach stackers to CONCOR for specified rates rather than handling cargo directly. For second agreement involving cargo handling operations, the tribunal remanded the matter to adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of service tax liability on export cargo handling, allowing appellant six weeks to submit additional evidence. The tribunal also directed examination of whether extended limitation period was properly invoked. Appeal was partially allowed through remand. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 28 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765666