https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774007 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, classifying their service as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service rather than a declared service under Section 66E(f) of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision was based on contract terms emphasizing transportation rather than lease/rental arrangements, issuance of consignment notes, and binding precedents from CESTAT Allahabad involving similar industrial gas transportation services. The Tribunal set aside the entire service tax demand, interest, and penalties imposed by the Commissioner, finding the classification as declared service to be erroneous and unsupported by evidence. en-us Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jul 2025 08:42:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774007 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, classifying their service as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service rather than a declared service under Section 66E(f) of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision was based on contract terms emphasizing transportation rather than lease/rental arrangements, issuance of consignment notes, and binding precedents from CESTAT Allahabad involving similar industrial gas transportation services. The Tribunal set aside the entire service tax demand, interest, and penalties imposed by the Commissioner, finding the classification as declared service to be erroneous and unsupported by evidence. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774007