TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... viaduct and stations of Delhi Metro Railway Project for Delhi Metro Corporation (DMRC) under turn-key contracts entered into during the year 2006, 2007 and 2008. However, they did not discharge any service tax liability on the activity undertaken by them. The department was of the view that they are liable to discharge service tax on the above activity under the category of 'commercial or industrial construction service' and accordingly four show cause notices were issued demanding service tax of Rs. 21,25,49,390/- on the consideration received by the appellant during the period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2011. The notices were adjudicated upon by the impugned order and the demands were confirmed along with interest and also by imposing penalties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(f) therein. The term 'Railway', in the first part of the definition clause relies upon the word "Railway" as is understood in normal parlance, with a stipulation that it should be used for the purpose of transportation of public carriage of passengers or goods. The Supreme Court in the case of Shahadara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Company vs. Municipal Board reported in AIR 1969 SC 513, had agreed with the contention of the appellant therein that the expression 'Railway' as is commonly understood means carriage of passengers and goods on iron rails. The term 'Railway' as described in Article 366(20) does not include tramway wholly within the municipal area, line of communication wholly situated in one State and declared by the Parliam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by the adjudicating authority that they are a different entity than railways as defined under section 65(25b) read with section 65(105)(zzzp) of the Finance Act, 1994 is not a legally acceptable proposition. 3.5 In view of the above position, he prays for allowing the appeals. 4. The learned Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that in para 3.12 the learned adjudicating authority has noted that: "the Central Government, while examining the scope of the term 'Railways' in the context of the request for Service Tax exemption for Commercial or Industrial Construction Service in respect of Monorail projects, has taken a view that the term 'Railway' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ays for putting the appellant to terms. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 The definition of 'Commercial and Industrial Construction Service' as provided in section 65(25b) excludes such activities relating to roads, ports, railways, dams, bridges, tunnels etc. There is no distinction between a monorail or metro rail or any other kind of rail and, therefore, the term 'railways' used therein has to be given its widest meaning to include all types of railways and all types of railway lines. Therefore, the distinction sought to be made by the adjudicating authority is not sustainable in law. 5.2 Secondly, we do not find any basis for the conclusion drawn by the learned adjudicating authority by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no applicable for interpreting the law as it stood at the relevant time. 5.4 The hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the DMRC's case (supra) has held that Delhi Metro Rail is Government Railway as defined in the Indian Railway Act. If that be so, the question of levy of service tax under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' would not arise at all as such constructions in respect of Railways stands excluded from the scope of the levy. 6. The hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohammed Nooh - 1958 (1) SCR 595 held that justice should be done in a common sense point of view stating that "I see no reason why is a narrow or ultra technical restriction to be placed on them. Justice should, in my opinion, be a....