<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (9) TMI 50 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331789</link>
    <description>Construction, erection, commissioning or installation of original works pertaining to railways fell within the exemption in Notification No. 25/2012-ST, because the term &quot;railways&quot; was not confined to Government railways. Reading the notification with the Railways Act, 1989 definition, which includes lines, sidings and yards used in connection with a railway, railway siding construction for private parties was also covered. The distinction sought between Government and non-Government railways did not limit the exemption, and Section 94 of the Railways Act was treated as irrelevant to the issue. Accordingly, the proposed activity was held exempt under entry 14(a).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2017 16:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 50 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331789</link>
      <description>Construction, erection, commissioning or installation of original works pertaining to railways fell within the exemption in Notification No. 25/2012-ST, because the term &quot;railways&quot; was not confined to Government railways. Reading the notification with the Railways Act, 1989 definition, which includes lines, sidings and yards used in connection with a railway, railway siding construction for private parties was also covered. The distinction sought between Government and non-Government railways did not limit the exemption, and Section 94 of the Railways Act was treated as irrelevant to the issue. Accordingly, the proposed activity was held exempt under entry 14(a).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>