Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata: In an appeal filed against order of the demand of service tax on construction of railway siding for Public Sector Undertakings, by the Adjudicating Authority, the two-member Bench of S. S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member)* allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the construction of railway siding for Public Sector Undertaking/Corporations exempted from levy of service tax under Finance Act, 1994 (‘Act’) as use of public also includes use by Public Sector Undertaking/ Corporations.
Background:
The Appellants were awarded the work of Consultancy Services for the project management of construction of Board-gauge railway siding by Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. (“MPPGCL”). The appellant was required to appoint or engage a contractor for execution of project work for and on behalf of MPPGCL. A tender was awarded to GVR-ENC, and approval of India Railways was taken.
A show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that the appellants received works service from GVR-ENC, and it was not related to construction of railway for public use. Accordingly, the appellants were liable to pay service tax in terms of Section 65-B(22) read with Section 66-E(h) of the Act. The demand was confirmed upon holding that the service received by the appellants was not for public carriage of goods.
Analysis, Law and Decision:
The Tribunal observed that MPPGCL had appointed the appellants as consultants for the construction of a railway siding, and the appellants engaged the service of GVK-ENC to execute the contract. The demand for service tax was made on services received by the appellants from GVK-ENC under reverse charge mechanism under Section 65-B(22) read with Section 66-E(h) of the Act, holding the same was not public usage.
The Tribunal relied on Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CCE (GST), 2024 SCC OnLine CESTAT 3678 wherein, the Tribunal held that there was no distinction between public and private railways in the Notification dated 20-6-2012 though, the word “Railways” is not defined under the Act. The Tribunal further held that distinction was not in the impugned order as the railway siding was constructed for use by a Public Sector Undertaking/ Corporation, MPPGCL. The Tribunal held that by use of public does not necessarily mean by individual public but also includes use by Public Sector Undertaking/ Corporations. Thus, the levy of tax could not be upheld, and the appeal was allowed.
[Rites Ltd. v. CCE (GST), 2025 SCC OnLine CESTAT 3991]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant (s): Mansi Khurana, Advocate For Respondent(s): Anurag Kumar and Amita Gupta, Authorised Representative