Railway construction exemption read plainly: benefit cannot be limited to government railways when the notification says railways.

Exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST for construction, erection, commissioning or installation of original works pertaining to railways was interpreted on its plain terms. The notification used the word "railways" and excluded only monorail and metro, so no further restriction to government railways could be implied. In tax law, exemption entries must be read as written, and additional qualifying words cannot be added by the adjudicating authority or Tribunal. The strict construction rule applies only where genuine ambiguity exists, and none was found here. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the railway project for private use remained eligible for the benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, S. No. 14(a), covering services by way of construction, erection, commissioning or installation of original works pertaining to railways, was confined only to government railways and therefore unavailable to a railway project meant for exclusive use of private entities.

Analysis: The notification used the expression "railways" and excluded only monorail and metro. It did not carve out any further restriction limiting the exemption to government railways. In tax law, exemption entries must be construed as written, and neither the adjudicating authority nor the Tribunal can add qualifying words that are not found in the notification. The principle of strict construction applies only where real ambiguity exists; here, no such ambiguity was found. The power to issue the notification lay under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the entry had to be interpreted on its plain terms.

Conclusion: The exemption was not confined to government railways. The denial of benefit was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption.

---