TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012- ST. This Tribunal has held in the precedent rulings that there is no distinction drawn by the statute with respect to public railways or private railways. It is further found that the work has been done and or the services provided to the Government companies like RITES, NTPC, IRCON, which are wholly owned by the Government of India and the management of these companies are controlled by the Ministry of Railways. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Arjun Singh, Advocate for the appellant Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of work orders/LOA. It appeared to Revenue that the appellant is required to discharge service tax liability including cess amounting to Rs.46,31,921/-. Reliance was placed on the letter issued by the Technical Officer (TRU-II), CBEC dated 02.08.2016 addressed to the AGM (Finance), RITES, clarifying that services of construction by way of laying down of tracks, merry-go-round and railway sidings for exclusive use of corporate houses and public sector undertakings, do not appear to be covered by exemption from service tax as provided in Entry 14 (a) of Notification No. 25/2012. Admittedly, the appellant have done following work/projects as mentioned in Para 7.5 of the SCN: Sl. No. LOA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the impugned order was pleased to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, observing that the appellant have rendered services to parties/corporations other than Indian Railways, which are meant exclusively for the private/commercial/business use of the project owners for the transportation of the goods cleared from their plant and there is no public carriage of passengers or goods. He also referred to the definition of Railways as per Section 2 (31) of the Railways Act, 1989, observing that as per the definition of the Railways , it would imply that use for the public carriage, passenger or goods is essential for availment of the exemption. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce 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. [Manu/SC/0300/1988: 1988 (36) ELT 201 (SC)] 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 wordings explicitly used therein and if there is no ambiguit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise, Secunderabad - 2019 (27) GSTL 549 and other rulings of this Tribunal. In para-9 of the Ruling in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. (supra), it has held as follows:- 9. It is, thus, clear that the proposition of strict construction of intent of exemption notification must also go hand in hand and strict construction of every word/phrase therein. The exemption from tax is available to railways , excluding mono rail or metro, by notification no.25/2012-ST dated 20th June, 2012 after 1st July, 2012 and, as conceded by the adjudicating authority , there being no definition of railway , either therein or in the Finance Act, 1994, the distinction between railway for private purpose and railway for public service cannot be artificially co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
