https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775711 The CESTAT Chennai held that the appellant's transportation of goods by road does not attract service tax under Section 66D(p) of the Finance Act, as they are neither a goods transportation agency nor a courier agency. The amounts reimbursed for freight and insurance were correctly excluded from service tax liability. The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) was not invokable since the demand was based on financial records publicly disclosed, negating any suppression or concealment. Consequently, the penalty under Section 78 was also set aside. The appeal was allowed, quashing the service tax demand, interest, and penalty. en-us Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Jul 2025 08:21:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775711 The CESTAT Chennai held that the appellant's transportation of goods by road does not attract service tax under Section 66D(p) of the Finance Act, as they are neither a goods transportation agency nor a courier agency. The amounts reimbursed for freight and insurance were correctly excluded from service tax liability. The extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) was not invokable since the demand was based on financial records publicly disclosed, negating any suppression or concealment. Consequently, the penalty under Section 78 was also set aside. The appeal was allowed, quashing the service tax demand, interest, and penalty. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775711