<?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 179 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792798</link>
    <description>Demurrage charges and dispatch money were treated as contractual adjustments linked to delay or timely turnaround, not as independent consideration for a taxable port service or declared service. The demand failed because the appellant was neither shown to be the port service provider nor was the vessel owner shown to be receiving a taxable service from it. Consulting engineering services from a foreign contractor were also held not separately liable under reverse charge, since the Indian establishment of the same contractor was the establishment directly concerned with the service and had already discharged tax on the transaction. The service tax demands and consequential penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 08:37:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 179 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792798</link>
      <description>Demurrage charges and dispatch money were treated as contractual adjustments linked to delay or timely turnaround, not as independent consideration for a taxable port service or declared service. The demand failed because the appellant was neither shown to be the port service provider nor was the vessel owner shown to be receiving a taxable service from it. Consulting engineering services from a foreign contractor were also held not separately liable under reverse charge, since the Indian establishment of the same contractor was the establishment directly concerned with the service and had already discharged tax on the transaction. The service tax demands and consequential penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>