TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I] which was sought to be tax after vivisection said contract by the department. The said Afcons infrastructure Ltd. aggrieved by the adjudicating authority's order confirming the demand, was in appeal before the Tribunal which was disposed of by the Bench - Since the issue involved in the case is in respect of very same DMRC but a construction company for civil contract. As such contract cannot be vivisected, the impugned order is to be held as unsustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - APPLICATION NO. ST/MA(ORS)/94973/15 IN APPEAL NO. ST/33/11-Mum - A/94457/16/STB - Dated:- 18-11-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority rejected the said refund claim on the ground that reliance placed by M/s Siemens Ltd. on the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Daelim Indl. Co. Ltd. is misplaced and in respect of Installation Commissioning Engineer services in the case in hand Service Tax is paid under Erection Commission and Installation services and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2006 (2) STR 161], wherein it was held that the contract cannot be vivisected for levy of Service Tax. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, we find that there is no dispute as to the fact that contract which was awarded to appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xt of certain tax exemptions. There is no evidence before us to show that the Government examined the matter and came to such a conclusion nor is there any circular or notification issued by the Government in this regard. In the absence of any such decision which is in the public domain, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the Revenue in this regard and reject the same totally. In other words, the law has to be interpreted as it stood, as held by the hon'ble Apex court in the case of Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. [1988(36) ELT 201(SC)] = (2002-TIOL-389-SC-MISC) wherein it has been held that the notings in the government files are not relevant for interpretation of the statutes and the statute has to be interpreted by the wordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al way and by broad based to the human value other than of narrow and restricted consideration hedged around with hell and technicality The above principles laid down by the Apex court needs to be followed by all the subordinate courts while interpreting the statute. 7. It is also a well known fact that the Indian Railway itself is an organization, which is meant to run on commercial basis. Recognizing these facts, there is a provision for a separate Railway-Budget to be presented before the Parliament and whenever there is a surplus, the Railways declared a dividend and pass it on to the Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore, the argument that only DMRC is run on commercial basis and not Indian Railway, is not an acceptable proposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
