2020 (2) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llows: Sl. No. Appeal No. SCN date Period Amount of ST(Rs.) 1 51300/2017 11.04.2014 Dec. 2008 to 2/2012 5,27,13,982/- 2 51299/2017 19.02.2015 1/2013 to 4/2014 1,97,59,938/- 2. Show cause notices were issued invoking the extended period of limitation. The show cause notices were adjudicated on contest. The appellant made the following submissions before the Court below:- "40.1 The issue was raised by audit and to the objection raised by the audit, the noticee had explained in detail vide his letter dated 10.5.2012 that the contention of the department was not correct. In the detailed replies, they had explained clearly how the department contention was wrong. Their submissions, inter a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Tribunal in AB Projects Pvt. ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur - 2010 (19) STR 886 (Tri. Mumbai) = 2010-TIOL-UO-CESTAT-MUM to contend that any activity of construction that is able to generate revenue will not be exempt from levy of service tax. We take note of the specific exclusion of railway work from the definition (supra). Revenue contends that the exemption is accorded to railways that are used as public carriage of passengers and goods which the projects undertaken by the appellant are not. Appellant relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II [2015 (38) STR 194 (Tri. Mumbai -2014-TIOL-679-CESTAT-MUM and Delhi Metro Rail corporation Limited v. Mu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t sl. No. 14(a) grants exemption to 'railways'. Even if the definition of 'railway' is taken from the Railways Act, 1989 for interpreting said Notification, as revenue has resorted to do, the benefit of Notification would be available to 'railways' including 'railway' used for purposes other than for public carriage of passengers or goods.....". 5. The adjudicating authority held that the activities of the appellant are for private parties thus ultimately for commercial use only and such service does not qualify for exemption from the service tax. Accordingly, the appellant is required to pay service tax. 6. Heard the parties. 7. The appellant have relied on the following decisions also in support of their contention. (i) ....