https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327106 The Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the service tax demand on transporting chlorine through a pipeline. It was determined that the transportation charges were part of the consideration for sale and central excise duty discharge, with no distinct service provider for the transport of goods through the pipeline. The appellant's ownership and operation of the pipeline, along with the inclusion of transportation charges in the assessable value for central excise duty, led to the conclusion that no additional service tax liability applied in this case. en-us Fri, 08 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327106 The Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the service tax demand on transporting chlorine through a pipeline. It was determined that the transportation charges were part of the consideration for sale and central excise duty discharge, with no distinct service provider for the transport of goods through the pipeline. The appellant's ownership and operation of the pipeline, along with the inclusion of transportation charges in the assessable value for central excise duty, led to the conclusion that no additional service tax liability applied in this case. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 08 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327106