<?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 (6) TMI 13 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792632</link>
    <description>A transaction remains taxable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service where the supplier retains possession and effective control, even if trailers and related equipment are provided for movement of heavy goods. The demand for Erection, Commissioning and Installation service was also maintained. Non-filing of ST-3 returns for most of the disputed period, non-disclosure of taxable value, and unretracted statements during investigation justified invocation of the extended period and supported penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78. Cum-tax treatment was required under Section 67(2), and CENVAT credit denial could not stand where the ground was not put to notice; tax and penalty were therefore directed to be reworked after fresh verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 08:25:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904760" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 13 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792632</link>
      <description>A transaction remains taxable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service where the supplier retains possession and effective control, even if trailers and related equipment are provided for movement of heavy goods. The demand for Erection, Commissioning and Installation service was also maintained. Non-filing of ST-3 returns for most of the disputed period, non-disclosure of taxable value, and unretracted statements during investigation justified invocation of the extended period and supported penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78. Cum-tax treatment was required under Section 67(2), and CENVAT credit denial could not stand where the ground was not put to notice; tax and penalty were therefore directed to be reworked after fresh verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>