<?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>2026 (1) TMI 576 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784820</link>
    <description>Whether Rule 4B required consignment notes where GTA service was exempt under Section 93: Rule 4B and its proviso mandate consignment notes for taxable road transportation, but exemption under Section 93 removes that obligation; the appellant produced GRs and accounted charges showing transportation for single consignee under Rs.750, so the requirement did not defeat the claimed exemption - outcome: exemption claim to be re-examined on documents and allowed for consideration. Whether extended period of limitation could be invoked for suppression: suppression requires deliberate, wilful nondisclosure (per SC precedent) and returns/audited accounts reflected the exempted amounts, so there was no suppression - outcome: extended period not invokable and impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for document-based reassessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:29:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=878002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 576 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784820</link>
      <description>Whether Rule 4B required consignment notes where GTA service was exempt under Section 93: Rule 4B and its proviso mandate consignment notes for taxable road transportation, but exemption under Section 93 removes that obligation; the appellant produced GRs and accounted charges showing transportation for single consignee under Rs.750, so the requirement did not defeat the claimed exemption - outcome: exemption claim to be re-examined on documents and allowed for consideration. Whether extended period of limitation could be invoked for suppression: suppression requires deliberate, wilful nondisclosure (per SC precedent) and returns/audited accounts reflected the exempted amounts, so there was no suppression - outcome: extended period not invokable and impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for document-based reassessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784820</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>