<?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>2025 (9) TMI 813 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778324</link>
    <description>Site levelling and civil construction integral to electricity transmission were treated as covered by the transmission-linked exemption, so service tax demand on those works failed. Construction and repair of an approach road used by the general public fell within the road exemption, so that demand also failed. Railway embankment, bridge and siding works were held to fall within the statutory meaning of railway, including sidings and works used in connection with a railway, and the railway exemption applied for the relevant periods; the demand was therefore not sustainable. The disputed demands were deleted, while tax already paid on the undisputed portion remained upheld and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 08:26:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=850478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 813 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778324</link>
      <description>Site levelling and civil construction integral to electricity transmission were treated as covered by the transmission-linked exemption, so service tax demand on those works failed. Construction and repair of an approach road used by the general public fell within the road exemption, so that demand also failed. Railway embankment, bridge and siding works were held to fall within the statutory meaning of railway, including sidings and works used in connection with a railway, and the railway exemption applied for the relevant periods; the demand was therefore not sustainable. The disputed demands were deleted, while tax already paid on the undisputed portion remained upheld and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>