<?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>2020 (9) TMI 651 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398532</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s. OIL India Limited, in an appeal against service tax demands for transportation of goods through pipelines. It was determined that the transportation activity was part of the sale transaction, making the appellant a seller rather than a service provider. The Tribunal highlighted contractual obligations and risk allocation, citing legal precedents to support the decision to set aside the service tax demand. As there was no service provider-service recipient relationship, the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty was dismissed, and all appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2020 16:32:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 651 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398532</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s. OIL India Limited, in an appeal against service tax demands for transportation of goods through pipelines. It was determined that the transportation activity was part of the sale transaction, making the appellant a seller rather than a service provider. The Tribunal highlighted contractual obligations and risk allocation, citing legal precedents to support the decision to set aside the service tax demand. As there was no service provider-service recipient relationship, the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty was dismissed, and all appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>