The CESTAT held that the transactions do not constitute "Supply of Tangible Goods Service" u/s...

The CESTAT determined that the transactions in question do not qualify as "Supply of Tangible Goods Service" under section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant had possession, control, and the right to use the packaging material after delivery by Volvo, who did not have control or possession over it. The appellant was responsible for any damages and had more than mere custody of the material. The decision was based on the CARAVEL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. case and the Supreme Court's five-fold test in the BSNL case, resulting in the appeal being allowed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X