TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluding the annual financial statements, balance sheet and trial balance, service tax returns, Cenvat credit registers, contracts, invoices, service tax deposit challans etc.. it was observed that the appellant has not paid service tax on the services provided to metro railways for "repair and maintenance". Department observed that the appellant has availed exemption from paying service tax of an amount of Rs.16 lakhs on the basis of Notification No. 9/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 which amended the Mega Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. However, it was observed that the services rendered by the appellant are not covered under the said amendment. The contract for rendering the said service was though executed before 01.03.2016 as re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urely for the reason that the service recipient i.e. Kolkata Metro is covered under railways being part of Indian Railways. The Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly decided the matter based on the explanation to Entry No. 14(a) of the said notification despite the fact that the case of appellant is covered under the main part of the said entry and explanation was not required to be invoked. Learned counsel has relied upon the Ministry of Railways Notification No. 2010/E&R/1500/19 dated 28.12.2010 vide which the metro rail Kolkata was declared to be a zonal railway with its Headquarters at Kolkata w.e.f. 29.12.2010. It is submitted that benefit of exemption has wrongly been denied. The demand of tax confirmed is therefore liable to be set asid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... defined in Entry No. 12 of the notification/amended Entry No. 14 otherwise do not match with the work conducted by the appellant. It is mentioned that appellant was rendering repair and maintenance service to Kolkata Metro. Post 01.03.2016 in case of providing services in the nature of erection, commissioning and installation of original works, the exemption was available only to the railways monorail and metro was excluded by way of amendment. Case of the appellant does not fall under the excepted category. Hence there is no infirmity in the findings arrived at in the order under challenge when the benefit of exemption from payment of tax in terms of mega exemption notification has been denied to the appellant. 4.1 While submitting on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the aforesaid issue pre as well as post amendment entry no. 14 of Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 need to be looked into. It reads as follows: "From 01.07.2012 to 29.02.2016 (pre-amendment) "14. Services by way of construction, erection, commissioning or installation of original work pertaining to- (a) Railway, including monorail and metro" From 01.03.2016 to 30.06.2017 (post-amendment) "14. Services by way of construction, erection, commissioning, or installation of original work pertaining to- (a) Railways, excluding monorail or metro Explanation - The services by way of construction, erection, commissioning, or installation or original works pertainin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in case the service is by way of construction, erection, commissioning or installation that too of the original work. Apparently, the nature of service rendered by the appellant is that of repair and maintenance of Kolkata metro. I have perused the letter of acceptance issue by Metro Railway Kolkata. The subject is "Repairing of 04 (four) no. SEPCOS-NG Relays in KMUK-KKVS Section). There is appellant's invoices also on record wherein the appellant has described the service rendered as repairing of said four relays. 6.4 Though the appellant has relied upon the copy of tender document which was initially not on record but at the time of argument permission was given to place the said document on record. However, the scope of service as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012. The case of appellant is also not covered under the explanation to the said entry. 6.7 Further it is observed that though the contract between appellant and Kolkata metro was entered into before 01.03.2016 but there was no evidence of payment of appropriate stamp duty vis-à-vis said contract which was also the eligibility criteria for availment of said exemption. 6.8 Finally it is observed to be the admitted fact that the services are being provided to Kokata metro. Metro has specifically been excluded from the purview of exemption available to Railways. There is no ambiguity in the language of amended entry no. 14. Notification of 2010 as relied upon by the appellants despite being prior in time finds no mention in the No....