<?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 (4) TMI 1831 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790762</link>
    <description>Bareboat charter arrangements transferring possession and effective control of dredgers, vessels and allied equipment to the charterer were treated as outside taxable supply of tangible goods service because ownership remained with the owner while operational responsibility, insurance, fuel, crew-related obligations and redelivery obligations passed to the charterer. The same characterisation continued after 01.07.2012, so the declared service entry did not alter the tax treatment. The prior final decision in the appellant&#039;s own case was treated as conclusively covering the dispute. The service tax demand, interest and penalties were therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1831 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790762</link>
      <description>Bareboat charter arrangements transferring possession and effective control of dredgers, vessels and allied equipment to the charterer were treated as outside taxable supply of tangible goods service because ownership remained with the owner while operational responsibility, insurance, fuel, crew-related obligations and redelivery obligations passed to the charterer. The same characterisation continued after 01.07.2012, so the declared service entry did not alter the tax treatment. The prior final decision in the appellant&#039;s own case was treated as conclusively covering the dispute. The service tax demand, interest and penalties were therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>