https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784568 The dominant issue was classification and taxability of services for air cargo transportation arranged by the appellant. For the pre-1.7.2012 period, the Tribunal held the appellant qualified as an "aircraft operator" under s.65(105)(zzn) read with the statutory definition, since ownership or operation of aircraft was unnecessary and the appellant provided air transport using airlines; the service was covered by the charging entry but was exempt under Not. 29/2005-ST, so the demand failed. For the post-1.7.2012 period, the Tribunal held the appellant provided principal transportation service (not intermediary service) under a consolidated contract; applying Rule 10 POPS, place of provision was outside India, hence not taxable in India, so the demand, interest, and penalties were set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 10:18:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784568 The dominant issue was classification and taxability of services for air cargo transportation arranged by the appellant. For the pre-1.7.2012 period, the Tribunal held the appellant qualified as an "aircraft operator" under s.65(105)(zzn) read with the statutory definition, since ownership or operation of aircraft was unnecessary and the appellant provided air transport using airlines; the service was covered by the charging entry but was exempt under Not. 29/2005-ST, so the demand failed. For the post-1.7.2012 period, the Tribunal held the appellant provided principal transportation service (not intermediary service) under a consolidated contract; applying Rule 10 POPS, place of provision was outside India, hence not taxable in India, so the demand, interest, and penalties were set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784568