Air cargo terminal operations including unloading, screening, and build-up services classified as Cargo Handling Services under Section 65A

CESTAT Hyderabad held that air cargo terminal operations including unloading, checking, weighing, customs facilitation, screening, and build-up services constitute Cargo Handling Services (CHS) rather than Storage and Warehousing Services (SWS). The tribunal determined that activities performed within the customs area by authorized cargo service providers for export cargo processing are cargo handling activities, not warehousing. Terminal storage charges collected during mandatory processing periods do not transform the operator into a warehouse keeper. Screening and pallet build-up services, though potentially classifiable under Airport Services when provided to airlines, fall under CHS per Section 65A classification hierarchy. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues involved: Classification of services provided by the Appellant and the applicability of service tax under the categories of Cargo Handling Services (CHS), Airport Services (APS), and Storage and Warehousing Services (SWS).

Issue 1: Classification of Services as CHS, APS, or SWS

The core issue is whether the services provided by the Appellant fall under CHS, APS, or SWS. The Department proposed that activities from S.No. 1-7 should be classified under SWS and activities from S.No. 8-9 under APS. The Appellant argued that all activities should be classified under CHS.

Issue 2: Activities from S.No. 1-7

The Tribunal analyzed the activities from S.No. 1-7, which include unloading, checking, weighing, facilitating customs examination, receiving export orders, checking documents, and loading cargo for screening. The Tribunal noted that these activities are incidental to the main activity of handling cargo and are performed within the cargo terminal for processing cargo before export. The Tribunal concluded that these activities fall under CHS and not SWS, as the terminal is not primarily for storage and warehousing but for processing cargo.

Issue 3: Activities from S.No. 8-9

The Tribunal examined the activities from S.No. 8-9, which involve screening cargo through X-ray machines and building up cargo in pallets for loading on aircraft. These services are provided to airlines on their specific request and not to exporters or agents. The Tribunal found that these services could be classified under both CHS and APS. However, applying Section 65A of the Finance Act, which provides guidelines for classification, the Tribunal held that these services should be classified under CHS, as it provides the most specific description.

Issue 4: Department's Contradictory Stand

The Appellant argued that the Department accepted the classification of CHS for import cargo but not for export cargo, which is contradictory. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, noting that the Department's stand was inconsistent.

Issue 5: Reliance on Notifications and Circulars

The Department relied on various notifications and circulars to classify the services under SWS and APS. The Tribunal emphasized that the scope of services should be determined based on the express wording of the classification in the Finance Act and Rules, not on the nomenclature used for collecting charges.

Conclusion

The Tribunal allowed the Appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order and all penalties. The Tribunal held that the services provided by the Appellant should be classified under CHS, as they are integrally related to cargo handling and not primarily for storage and warehousing or airport services. The Tribunal left the ground of limitation open.

Final Order

The Appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, and the judgment was pronounced in the Open Court on 10.11.2023.

---