https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438728 The Tribunal found that the appellant, a transporter, did not contract for rail transport but used it when necessary due to a shortage of lorries. The service recipient paid service tax for road transportation, and the appellant paid service tax on rail freight charges. The Tribunal held that the demand for service tax on rail freight charges was not sustainable as the appellant had already paid the applicable tax. The demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. en-us Tue, 30 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jun 2023 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438728 The Tribunal found that the appellant, a transporter, did not contract for rail transport but used it when necessary due to a shortage of lorries. The service recipient paid service tax for road transportation, and the appellant paid service tax on rail freight charges. The Tribunal held that the demand for service tax on rail freight charges was not sustainable as the appellant had already paid the applicable tax. The demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 30 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438728