<?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>2024 (2) TMI 1616 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465437</link>
    <description>Time charter hire received by the vessel owner from charterers was assessed as taxable &quot;supply of tangible goods for use&quot; (STGU) under s.65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. Interpreting the charterparty clauses in light of maritime conventions and the Merchant Shipping Act, the Tribunal held that physical possession and effective control of the vessel were delivered to the charterer for the charter period; hence the arrangement amounted to transfer of the right to use and did not constitute STGU, which applies where possession/effective control is retained by the supplier. The Tribunal further held that services consumed at offshore locations in the Continental Shelf/EEZ were outside the taxable territory under s.64 and applicable notifications, rendering the levy unsustainable to that extent. The demand and impugned order were set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 19:22:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 1616 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465437</link>
      <description>Time charter hire received by the vessel owner from charterers was assessed as taxable &quot;supply of tangible goods for use&quot; (STGU) under s.65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. Interpreting the charterparty clauses in light of maritime conventions and the Merchant Shipping Act, the Tribunal held that physical possession and effective control of the vessel were delivered to the charterer for the charter period; hence the arrangement amounted to transfer of the right to use and did not constitute STGU, which applies where possession/effective control is retained by the supplier. The Tribunal further held that services consumed at offshore locations in the Continental Shelf/EEZ were outside the taxable territory under s.64 and applicable notifications, rendering the levy unsustainable to that extent. The demand and impugned order were set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>