<?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>2023 (9) TMI 1377 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443755</link>
    <description>Whether service tax was payable on works contract services (including sub-contracts) rendered in relation to &quot;railways&quot; turned on the scope of the exemption notification. The Tribunal held that the notification contains no restriction confining &quot;railways&quot; to public carriage; on a plain reading, it covers all railway infrastructure, including private tracks, and executive importation of a narrower meaning is impermissible. The related demands were therefore held unsustainable and set aside. For repair and maintenance services, the balance demand was rejected as abatement under Rule 2A of the 2006 Valuation Rules had not been properly granted; the balance demand was set aside. Under reverse charge, the differential demand was negated due to incorrect rate/abatement adoption; it was set aside. Penalties under ss. 78, 77(1)(a), and 78A were quashed for lack of evidence of suppression or director involvement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 14:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=727731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 1377 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443755</link>
      <description>Whether service tax was payable on works contract services (including sub-contracts) rendered in relation to &quot;railways&quot; turned on the scope of the exemption notification. The Tribunal held that the notification contains no restriction confining &quot;railways&quot; to public carriage; on a plain reading, it covers all railway infrastructure, including private tracks, and executive importation of a narrower meaning is impermissible. The related demands were therefore held unsustainable and set aside. For repair and maintenance services, the balance demand was rejected as abatement under Rule 2A of the 2006 Valuation Rules had not been properly granted; the balance demand was set aside. Under reverse charge, the differential demand was negated due to incorrect rate/abatement adoption; it was set aside. Penalties under ss. 78, 77(1)(a), and 78A were quashed for lack of evidence of suppression or director involvement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>