2017 (9) TMI 1382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e period from 2013-2014 against Order-in-Original No. 21/Comm/ST/SLG/15-16 dated 08.01.2016. 2. During the period under consideration the appellant has rendered the services of welding, drilling, joining of rails and rail panels and other ancillary works including ultrasonic testing of welded joints to the railways. After the introduction of the negative list based levy of service tax on various services w.e.f. 01.07.2012, the department was of the view that the activities carried out by the appellants were liable to payment of service tax. The department was further of the view that the appellant will not be eligible for the benefit of Mega Notification No.12/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 which granted exemption from levy of service tax with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant for railways do not fall within the category of original works, hence will not be eligible of benefit of Mega Notification. 6. After hearing both sides and perusal of record, we find that the bone of contention is the activity carried out by the appellant for railways. The services rendered are by way of welding, drilling, joining of rails and rail panels and ancillary works. The claim of the appellant is that such activities will stand exempted under Sl.No.14 of the Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012 (w.e.f. 01.07.2012). Sl. No.14 of the said notification is as under: "14. Services by way of construction, erection, commissioning, or installation of original work pertaining to,- (a) An airport, port or railways, in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ried out by the appellant do not fall within the definition of original works as given above, since the activities do not fall within any of the sub-headings. The Adjudicating Authority has elaborately discussed the reasons why the activities were not covered by the Sl.No.14 of the Notification (supra). After going through the detailed reasons we find no reason to take a different view. Consequently, even though services have been rendered for railways, the benefit of notification No.25/2012 is not available to the appellant. The activities rendered by the appellants will be liable to service tax w.e.f. 01.07.2012 as has been held by the lower authority in the impugned orders. Consequently there is no ground at all to interfere with the fin....