Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Railway track construction not business support service; Revenue appeal rejected. Limitation period applies.</h1> The Tribunal rejected both appeals filed by the Revenue, emphasizing that laying down rail tracks for the Railway Ministry does not constitute providing ... Business Support Service - Revenue sharing - laying down of rail tracks - extended period of limitation - Held that:- The cost of laying of the railway lines is being recovered by the respondent from the railways, on revenue sharing basis, in terms of the agreement entered into between two - the decision in the case of M/S MUNDRA PORT & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD VERSUS CCE, RAJKOT [2011 (9) TMI 93 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] is fully applicable to the facts of the present case where it was held that Investing in the railways lines so as to enable the railways to run on the Adipur Mundra Port lines cannot be held as providing of any infrastructural services so as to boost the business of the service receiver. In fact as already observed, by agreeing to run railways between Adipur Mundra Port, it is the railways who have provided services to the appellants. Similarly, maintenance of the assets which are admittedly assets of the appellants does not amount to providing any business support services to the railways - demand not sustainable. Time limitation - Held that:- The Revenue in their grounds of appeal has not advanced any arguments to rebutt the above finding of the adjudicating authority on the point of time bar. As such, the demand having been raised beyond the period of limitation stands rightly dropped by the adjudicating authority. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:- Whether laying down rail tracks for Railway Ministry amounts to providing infrastructure support service under business support service categoryRs.- Whether the Tribunal's decision in the Mundra Port case is applicable to the present caseRs.- Whether the demand raised by the Revenue is beyond the period of limitationRs.Analysis:1. Issue 1 - Infrastructure Support Service: The case involved the laying down of rail tracks by the respondents for the Railway Ministry, with the cost being shared based on an agreement. The Revenue contended that this activity falls under the business support service category, leading to proceedings being initiated against the respondents. However, the Tribunal, relying on the Mundra Port case, held that investing in railway lines to enable the railways to operate their wagons does not constitute providing infrastructural services. The Tribunal emphasized that the railways were providing services to the respondents by agreeing to operate the railways at a specific location, and the cost recovery was part of revenue sharing, not infrastructure support.2. Issue 2 - Applicability of Tribunal Decision: The Tribunal found the facts of the present case to be identical to those in the Mundra Port case and concluded that the decision in Mundra Port was fully applicable. It was reasoned that since the railways were providing services to the respondents by agreeing to operate the railways, the investment in railway lines did not amount to providing infrastructural services. The Tribunal held that challenging the Mundra Port decision before the Supreme Court, without a stay, did not merit a different view in the present case.3. Issue 3 - Demand Beyond Limitation Period: The adjudicating authority also dropped the demand on the ground of limitation, noting that the department had proposed an extended period due to various reasons related to non-compliance. The Revenue did not provide arguments to counter this finding, leading the Tribunal to uphold that the demand raised was rightly dropped as it was beyond the period of limitation.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected both appeals filed by the Revenue, emphasizing the non-applicability of business support service categorization to the activity of laying down rail tracks, the relevance of the Mundra Port case decision, and the correctness of dropping the demand based on the limitation period.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found