<?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>2025 (4) TMI 957 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769043</link>
    <description>Hiring out equipment was treated as a transfer of the right to use goods where possession and effective control passed to the hirer. Because the transaction was supported by VAT payment and fell within the category of deemed sale, it was outside the service tax net as supply of tangible goods service. The Tribunal relied on the contractual terms, its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case, and the Board circular to conclude that the service tax demand was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:38:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=815537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 957 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769043</link>
      <description>Hiring out equipment was treated as a transfer of the right to use goods where possession and effective control passed to the hirer. Because the transaction was supported by VAT payment and fell within the category of deemed sale, it was outside the service tax net as supply of tangible goods service. The Tribunal relied on the contractual terms, its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case, and the Board circular to conclude that the service tax demand was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>