Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (5.65 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-I on 3 May, 2012

Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Cgst And Central ... on 17 February, 2022

Appellant relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-II [2015 (38) STR 194 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others [2008 (103) DRJ 369] to drive home the point that coverage under Railways Act, 1989 is sufficient to consider any such infrastructure as railways. We notice that the Railway Act, 1989 provides for railways with public investment and private investment and both function under the same statute. Such railways established in the private sector have a statutorily acknowledged Administrator. Consequently, we too hold that railway sidings built by the appellant fall within the ST/86191/2021 5 exclusionary portion of Section 65(25a) and are outside the ambit of taxation.'
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hemarus Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 30 September, 2016

6. As pointed out by the Ld. Advocate, it is clear from the statement of Shri J. Venkatrao, General Manager, that the unit had not commenced production when the investigation started and hence there was no clearance from the factory. This fact has not been contested ted by the Ld. AR. As there was no clearance from the factory, there was no question of utilization of the cenvat credit availed by the party. On these facts, the case of GTL Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. CCE (supra) cited by the Ld. Advocate, is directly applicable. In the said judgment, the Tribunal held as below:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd vs Commr Service Tax- Vii Mumbai on 11 September, 2020

9. The decision of the Tribunal in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II [2015 (38) STR 194 (Tri- Mumbai)] holding that '3.3 ...... From the above decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is clear that DMRC is a "railway"' as defined in section 2 (31) of the Railways Act, 1989 and, therefore, the ratio of the above judgement will apply equally in case of service tax liability also. Consequently, the finding that '3.4.....From this also, it is clear that DMRC is a 'railway' as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 and, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the adjudicating authority that they are a different entity and Railways as defined under Section 65 (25b) read with Section 65 (105) (zzzp) of the Finance Act, 1994 is not a legally acceptable proposition.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Service Tax - Delhi vs L R Sharma on 15 September, 2022

It was also clarified that it is a well settled legal position that metro work is nothing but railways work.‟ also offers ground for discard of the appeal of Revenue which is, according to him, further stated in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II17 holding that „7. It is also a well-known fact that the Indian Railway itself as an organisation, which is meant to run on commercial basis. Recognising these facts, there is a provision for a separate Railway- Budget to be presented before the Parliament and whenever there is a surplus, the Railways declared a dividend and pass it onto the Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore, the argument that only Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) is run on commercial basis and not Indian Railway, is not an acceptable proposition.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - D Gupta - Full Document

Rahee Infratech Ltd vs Service Tax-Ii, Kolkata on 21 November, 2025

• Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CCE [2013 (8) TMI 530 - Tri Mumbai] • Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd vs. CCE [2023 (2) TMI 1175 - Tri- Mum] Page 8 of 36 Appeal No.: ST/76709/2016-DB • CCE vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd [ 2023 (8) TMI 128 - SC] • KVR Rail Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs CCT [2019 (5) TMI 376 - Tri Hyd] • R.K.D. Infrastructure Private Limited vs. CCE [2023 (9) TMI 811 -Tri] • Hari Construction & Associates Private Limited vs. CCE [2023 (9) TMI 454 - Tri Kol] • Triveni Engicons Private Limited vs. CCE [2024 (3) TMI 917 - Tri- Kol] ▪ Non-payment of service-tax of Rs. 17,05,088/- on commission charges of Rs. 1,37,95,205/- received from M/s Pandrol UK (entity based outside India) under Business Auxiliary Services for the F.Y. 2013-14
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sms Infrastructure Limited vs Nagpur on 24 February, 2016

Appellant relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-II [2015 (38) STR 194 (Tri-Mumbai)] and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others [2008 (103) DRJ 369] to drive home the point that coverage under Railways Act, 1989 is sufficient to consider any such infrastructure as railways. We notice that the Railway Act, 1989 provides for railways with public investment and private investment and both function under the same statute. Such railways established in the private sector have a statutorily acknowledged Administrator. Consequently, we too hold that railway sidings built by the appellant fall within the exclusionary portion of section 65(25a) and are outside the ambit of taxation.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next