2025 (1) TMI 846 - AT - Service Tax

ICD logistics services classified as Cargo Handling Services under Section 65A, not Business Support Service classification

M/s. Tirupur Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai

CESTAT Chennai held that logistics services provided by an ICD appellant constituted transportation service under Cargo Handling Services rather than ... Classification of service - Business Support Service or Cargo Handling Services? - logistics services provided by the appellant - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The classification of services is governed by Section 65 A ibid. It is not the case of the department that the appellant did not provide transportation service as a part of handling of cargo. The only reason advanced in the SCN is earning income over and above incurred expenditure on transportation. The Appellant is to provide transportation service and it invoices its customer for transportation service. Hence, the Revenue has failed to provide arny reason in support of its averment that the service is that of 'logistics' and it would be liable for service tax under the classification of 'business support service”. Moreover, under the provisions of section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994 specific description is always preferred over general description. If the Appellant being an ICD has provided service of transportation by road, it cannot be classified under any other entry. The law does not authorize such classification. For providing transportation service, the liability cannot be fixed otherwise than on the recipient thereof in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The period of dispute is from 2007-08 to 2011-12 and Show Cause Notices came to be issued on 19.10.2011 and 10.10.2012 invoking the extended period of limitation - from the facts borne on record that the appellant being an ICD had admitted its liability under the specific classification namely CHS and hence, the Revenue could not have presumed as to the knowledge of the appellant for the taxability of difference between transport income and transport expense as reflected in the books of accounts to be liable to Service Tax under ‘transportation charges’, which fact was not alleged even in Show Cause Notice. Hence, at best, the liability could have been restricted to the normal period of limitation. Conclusion - The logistics services provided by the appellant were ancillary to CHS and not a separate BSS. Therefore, the demand for additional service tax under BSS was set aside. Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question addressed in this judgment is whether the demand for service tax under the category of 'Business Support Service' (BSS) for the logistics services provided by the appellant is justified. This involves examining whether the logistics services fall under the definition of BSS or are merely ancillary to 'Cargo Handling Services' (CHS), which the appellant claims to provide.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents:The legal framework centers around the Finance Act, 1994, specifically sections 65(23) and 65(104c), which define CHS and BSS, respectively. The classification of services is governed by Section 65A, which dictates that a specific description of a service is preferred over a general one. The Service Tax Rules, 1994, particularly Rule 2(1)(d)(v), allocate the liability of service tax payment to the recipient of services.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Tribunal analyzed whether the logistics services provided by the appellant should be classified under BSS or remain under CHS. It was observed that the appellant provided transportation services through outsourced agencies and that the income from these services was recorded as 'transportation income.' The Tribunal emphasized that a specific service description (CHS) should take precedence over a general one (BSS), as per Section 65A.Key evidence and findings:The evidence included the appellant's financial records, which showed transportation income and expenses, and the agreements with transporting agencies. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's activities involved handling cargo, with logistics being an ancillary service. The income difference between transportation income and expenses was considered a business margin rather than evidence of BSS.Application of law to facts:The Tribunal applied the legal principle that specific service descriptions prevail over general ones. Since the appellant's primary service was CHS, and the logistics involved were ancillary, the Tribunal concluded that the service should not be reclassified under BSS. The Tribunal also considered the liability for service tax on transportation services, which, according to Rule 2(1)(d)(v), falls on the recipient, not the service provider.Treatment of competing arguments:The appellant argued that the logistics services were part of CHS and that any income difference was a business margin, not a separate service. The Revenue argued that the additional income from logistics should be taxed under BSS. The Tribunal sided with the appellant, emphasizing the specificity of CHS and the nature of the logistics as ancillary services.Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the demand for service tax under BSS was unjustified. The logistics services were ancillary to CHS and should not be considered a separate taxable service under BSS. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's tax liability should be limited to the normal period of limitation, as the extended period was not justified.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:'The classification of services is governed by Section 65 A ibid. It is not the case of the department that the appellant did not provide transportation service as a part of handling of cargo.'Core principles established:The judgment reinforces the principle that specific service descriptions should prevail over general ones for tax classification purposes. It also clarifies that ancillary services to a primary service should not be reclassified into a different taxable category without clear justification.Final determinations on each issue:The Tribunal determined that the logistics services provided by the appellant were ancillary to CHS and not a separate BSS. Therefore, the demand for additional service tax under BSS was set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to consequential benefits as per the law.