TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... astructure Limited vs CCE, Mumbai-II [2013 (8) TMI 530 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that the construction for DMRC are not liable to service tax under CICS as DMRC was covered in the exclusionary clause of Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The services rendered to DMRC would be covered in the exclusionary clause of WCS under Section 65(105)(zzzza) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard Sh. Rakshit Verma, ld. Advocate for the appellant who submits that the services were provided under the works contract to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) as a main contractor or as a sub-contractor of M/s IDEB (the main contractor) and therefore the service rendered fell outside the scope of CICS/WCS. He submits that the services were contract services. 3. On the other hand, Sh. Sanjay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1994. Thus, the services rendered to DMRC would be covered in the exclusionary clause of WCS under Section 65(105)(zzzza) as per the ration laid down in the case of AFCONS Infrastructure Limited (supra). When it is so, then we find no reason to sustain the impugned order. The same is hereby set aside. 6. In the result, all the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed. (Dictated and pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
