https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782469 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the demand of service tax under "Supply of Tangible Goods Service" for hiring of JCBs and tippers. It held that the department failed to establish "transfer of right to use" or effective control over the equipment, relying only on bank statements, income-tax data, and indications of mere "lending," which are insufficient to classify the activity under the said taxable service. The Tribunal further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable, as the department did not discharge its burden to prove suppression or mala fide intent. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed on both merits and limitation. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782469 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the demand of service tax under "Supply of Tangible Goods Service" for hiring of JCBs and tippers. It held that the department failed to establish "transfer of right to use" or effective control over the equipment, relying only on bank statements, income-tax data, and indications of mere "lending," which are insufficient to classify the activity under the said taxable service. The Tribunal further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable, as the department did not discharge its burden to prove suppression or mala fide intent. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed on both merits and limitation. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782469