2017 (3) TMI 938

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvice tax under various categories. The dispute in the present case relates to the period from 01/10/2003 to 31/03/2007. The service tax liability was sought to be confirmed on the appellant under the category of "storage and warehousing service" upto 09/09/2004 and under "airport services" w.e.f. 10/09/2004. The appellants contended that the services now sought to be categorized under these tax entries were actually "cargo handling services" and as they relate to export cargo they are excluded from tax liability. The Original Authority adjudicated the case and confirmed service tax liability of Rs. 8,59,06,238/-. Penalties were also imposed under Section 77 and 78 of the Act. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....estion of time bar also. The demand in the present case was issued invoking allegation of suppression of fact, willful misstatement, with an intention to evade tax. The appellant is a Government body coming under the Ministry of Civil Aviation and created by an Act of Parliament. There can be no malafide intention on their part while dealing with the tax matters. The learned Counsel submitted that officers of DGCEI conducted enquiry earlier also and a show cause notice dated 18/07/2006 was issued to them for demanding service tax. The said notice did not cover handling charges, unitization charges and X-ray charges under airport services. Regular audits were also conducted on their accounts. In fact, the Board clarified, in response to thei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... movement by aircraft. These activities are not relating to storage and warehousing of cargo. To complete these processes some time is taken and during this time, the cargo is held by the appellant in a secured area. The cargo brought by exporters are not for storage or warehousing in the airport. The cargo is brought for shipment and the shipment happens at the earliest available opportunity. Till the shipment, the cargo is held for a short duration by the appellant. During this duration, various activities to make the cargo fit for shipment is undertaken. As such, we are in agreement with the appellant that they are not involved in providing storage and warehousing service with reference to the cargo. As such, there is no tax liability un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, the appellants continued to provide similar set of service all through out. This fact is not disputed. However, after the introduction of specific service under the head 'airport services' wherein all type of services rendered within the specific area of airport is sought to be taxed under one heading, the appellants liability arises. There is no contest to the fact that appellants are airport authority and are providing service in the said airport and are squarely covered by the airport services. This is even without reference to the proviso inserted in the tax entry through Finance Act, 2010. However, to invoke extended period for demand of service tax against the appellant we find no tenable justification recorded by the lower Authori....