<?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 (5) TMI 975 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791773</link>
    <description>Printers and multifunctional printers supplied under onsite, offsite and OFE arrangements were not taxable as supply of tangible goods because possession and effective control were not retained by the supplier in the manner required for that levy. The onsite model involved installation at customer premises with maintenance and consumables, the offsite model was treated as printing work with material value deductible and covered by Notification No. 12/2003-ST, and the OFE model involved customer-owned equipment with consumables and support only. The activity also did not fall within Business Support Services, and differing departmental classifications for the same activity showed that suppression was not established, so the extended period of limitation was not available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 08:40:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 975 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791773</link>
      <description>Printers and multifunctional printers supplied under onsite, offsite and OFE arrangements were not taxable as supply of tangible goods because possession and effective control were not retained by the supplier in the manner required for that levy. The onsite model involved installation at customer premises with maintenance and consumables, the offsite model was treated as printing work with material value deductible and covered by Notification No. 12/2003-ST, and the OFE model involved customer-owned equipment with consumables and support only. The activity also did not fall within Business Support Services, and differing departmental classifications for the same activity showed that suppression was not established, so the extended period of limitation was not available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>