TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 75 of Finance Act, 1994, while subjected to penalty of like amount under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 besides penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 77 of Finance Act, 1994. The proceedings, culminating in order in-original no. 69/ST-VII/CD/2016 dated 28th December 2016 of Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai, were initiated for alleged non-payment of tax liability on work undertaken for M/s Mumbai Metro One Pvt Ltd and M/s Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited during 2011-12 and 2012-13 as provider of 'commercial or industrial construction service', incorporated for tax by section 65(105)(zzzh) of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that their consistent claim of being provider of 'works contract serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertaining to monorail or metro, where contracts were entered into before 1 March 2016, on which appropriate stamp duty, was paid, shall remain exempt.', would remain altered insofar as the impugned contracts are concerned. 3. We have also heard Learned Authorized Representative at length. 4. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd [2015 (39) STR 913 (SC)] was not available to the adjudicating authority and the finding therein that all the component activities of 'works contract service', to the extent taxable under separate entries prior to the new taxable service, were intended to cover service simpliciter. Consequently, the claim of the appellant to be provider ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overnmental bodies or any other persons for the purpose of taxation. This is essential to avoid competitive disadvantage to other similar non-governmental service providers and to ensure level playing field to all similar service providers. 3.9 Indian Railways under the Ministry of Railways is part of the Government of India and not on commercial basis. Therefore, Indian Railways cannot be compared or equated with MMO/DMRC, a Company formed under the Companies Act and is committed to run purely on commercial lines even if it is fully owned by the Government...." Railway" in the Indian Context is popularly known as "Indian Railways" and is more appropriately understood as Railways operated under the Indian Railways Act especially fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. 7. The definitions in the statute governing Railways is intended for fencing in the operational component to such objects as are included in that law. It is not appropriate to place reliance on such definitions save under the express authority of Finance Act, 1994. It is also not correct to contend that the coverage of the statute governing Railways is limited to government Railways; no such distinction is drawn except for the purposes of jurisdiction of the railway authorities specified therein for the governance of the Railways belonging to the government. 8. In the absence of any qualification for the 'railway' incorporated in the exclusion component of the taxable service, any railway, irrespective of ownership, is covered. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... run on commercial basis and not Indian Railway, is not an acceptable proposition. In view of the specific exclusion of 'railways' from commercial and industrial construction service, the question of imposing any Service Tax on the Railways run by the DMRC does not arise at all.' may be usefully referred to in the context of eligibility for exclusion of services rendered to DMRC and Mumbai Metro One. 10. In relation to the taxability after 1st July 2012, it is the contention of Learned Authorized Representative that the entries pertaining to 'railways' and to 'metro, monorail or tramway' are distinct in section 66D (o) of Finance Act, 1994 implying that reference to 'railways' did not include the latter in the exclusion provisions. We....