Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Service Tax

Service Tax Demand on DG Set Hiring Quashed as Transfer of Right to Use Goods: CESTAT Chennai

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 9106
Case Name
Edison Gentech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

Edison Gentech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)

The appeal challenged Order-in-Original No. 8/2016 (Reassigned) dated 31.05.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III. The appellant, registered for Transport of Goods by Road/Goods Transport Agency Service and Supply of Tangible Goods for Use (STGU) Service, had been supplying diesel generator (DG) sets on rental basis since 2004. Following an investigation, the Department alleged that the appellant had failed to discharge appropriate service tax under STGU Service and had not filed ST-3 returns. A show cause notice dated 24.10.2013 proposed demand of service tax, interest and penalties for the period 2008-09 to 2011-12 under the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner confirmed the demands and imposed penalties under Sections 78 and 77(1)(a), leading to the present appeal.

The appellant submitted that the DG sets were delivered to customers’ premises, remained in their possession and were operated by them according to their requirements. Operators were supplied only on request, with service tax on manpower charges separately discharged under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES). It contended that possession and effective control were transferred to customers, making the transaction a transfer of the right to use goods and a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution, on which VAT had been paid since 2004. The appellant relied upon CBEC Circular No. 334/1/2008-TRU dated 29.02.2008, contended that diesel and oil reimbursements were not taxable, argued that the dispute was interpretational, disputed invocation of the extended period, and stated that service tax relating to transport charges of ₹68,927 had already been paid with interest before issuance of the show cause notice.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: Graduate, CA in Job / Business, DD
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 22,672

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.