2019 (4) TMI 26 - AT - Service Tax

Business Support Service - Revenue sharing - laying down of rail tracks - extended period of limitation - Held that - The cost of laying of the railway lines is being recovered by the respondent from the railways, on revenue sharing basis, in terms of the agreement entered into between two - the decision in the case of M/S MUNDRA PORT SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD VERSUS CCE, RAJKOT 2011 (9) TMI 93 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD is fully applicable to the facts of the present case where it was held that Investing in the railways lines so as to enable the railways to run on the Adipur Mundra Port lines cannot be held as providing of any infrastructural services so as to boost the business of the service receiver. In fact as already observed, by agreeing to run railways between Adipur Mundra Port, it is the railways who have provided services to the appellants. Similarly, maintenance of the assets which are admittedly assets of the appellants does not amount to providing any business support services to the railways - demand not sustainable. Time limitation - Held that - The Revenue in their grounds of appeal has not advanced any arguments to rebutt the above finding of the adjudicating authority on the point of time bar. As such, the demand having been raised beyond the period of limitation stands rightly dropped by the adjudicating authority. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether laying down rail tracks for Railway Ministry amounts to providing infrastructure support service under business support service category?
- Whether the Tribunal's decision in the Mundra Port case is applicable to the present case?
- Whether the demand raised by the Revenue is beyond the period of limitation?

Analysis:
1. Issue 1 - Infrastructure Support Service: The case involved the laying down of rail tracks by the respondents for the Railway Ministry, with the cost being shared based on an agreement. The Revenue contended that this activity falls under the business support service category, leading to proceedings being initiated against the respondents. However, the Tribunal, relying on the Mundra Port case, held that investing in railway lines to enable the railways to operate their wagons does not constitute providing infrastructural services. The Tribunal emphasized that the railways were providing services to the respondents by agreeing to operate the railways at a specific location, and the cost recovery was part of revenue sharing, not infrastructure support.

2. Issue 2 - Applicability of Tribunal Decision: The Tribunal found the facts of the present case to be identical to those in the Mundra Port case and concluded that the decision in Mundra Port was fully applicable. It was reasoned that since the railways were providing services to the respondents by agreeing to operate the railways, the investment in railway lines did not amount to providing infrastructural services. The Tribunal held that challenging the Mundra Port decision before the Supreme Court, without a stay, did not merit a different view in the present case.

3. Issue 3 - Demand Beyond Limitation Period: The adjudicating authority also dropped the demand on the ground of limitation, noting that the department had proposed an extended period due to various reasons related to non-compliance. The Revenue did not provide arguments to counter this finding, leading the Tribunal to uphold that the demand raised was rightly dropped as it was beyond the period of limitation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected both appeals filed by the Revenue, emphasizing the non-applicability of business support service categorization to the activity of laying down rail tracks, the relevance of the Mundra Port case decision, and the correctness of dropping the demand based on the limitation period.