TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OUDHARY , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE Mr. A. K. JYOTISHI , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Anil Kumar Kathuria , Advocate for the Appellant Shri V R Pavan Kumar , AR for the Respondent ORDER [ ORDER PER : ANIL CHOUDHARY ] The Appellant SEW Infrastructure Private Limited were registered with the Service Tax Department under the category of transport of goods by road service etc. They are engaged in the business of development of various infrastructure facilities for both Government and public/private sector undertakings. The Appellant entered into a contract with M/s GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd., (GHIAL for short) in December 2007 for construction of cargo agents building at the airport. The Appellants intimated the details of the said contract to the Jurisdictional Superintendent giving the address of the project site which was included in annexure/form ST-2 which is by way of amendment sheet to the registration certificate. Further vide letter dated 03.03.2010 to the Department, Appellant had also stated that construction of cargo agents building awarded by GHIAL falls within the ambit of airport as the said building was by way of annexxe to the cargo terminal at the air ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng is being used for other allied business activities relating to export/import of goods. It further appeared that air cargo building cannot be considered as a part of the airport. Accordingly, vide SCN dated 28.12.2010 invoking the extended period of limitation service tax was demanded Rs. 2,71,71,733/- under the Head Works Contact Service for the period 2007 08 - till 2008-09 as per annexure to the SCN along with interest further penalty was proposed under Section 77 and 78 of the Act. 5. The SCN was adjudicated on contest by the Commissioner vide impugned Order-in-Original confirming the proposed demand with equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Act and a further penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under Section 77. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the cargo agent building facility falls within the ambit of airport and as such the construction service provided does not attract service tax. Further states that the said building is appertaining to the runway opposite the cargo terminal to receive the cargo and the same is covered under the definition of Aerodrome. Section 65 (3c) of F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formed on the cargo which is procured from the subject cargo satellite building/cargo agent building. Therefore it is not justified to look at the air cargo building/cargo agent building in isolation. 9. It is also urged that it is evident from the master plan that there is no physical separation between the air cargo agent building and the cargo terminal building. In the master plan, a term future road, labelling can be seen in between the 2 buildings. It is further urged that the 2 buildings are inseparable and the same are interrelated. Further urges that the building constructed in the instant case is essential for the day to day functioning of the cargo terminal. Further urges that the 2 building are not separated by any boundary wall etc. 10. Further, it is urged that the customers who intend to export their cargo, first approach the air cargo building, where the cargo is accepted and then is processed by the agents running the air cargo business. After the processing, the same is forwarded to the air cargo terminal building for finalisation and customs formalities. After which the cargo is sent to the aircraft for export. Reverse in the case of import of cargo. Therefore it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts for a period of 15 years. This Tribunal held that it is of the opinion that area in which the air catering unit has been constructed is a part of the Aerodrome/airport and hence the service relating to construction of air catering unit on such area would get excluded from the definition of commercial or industrial construction service. It is further urged that cargo handling is a part of airport operations. Learned Counsel also refers to the definition of Cargo Handling Service in Section 65(23) of the Finance Act 1994 which is defined as follows: (23) cargo handling service means loading, unloading, packing or unpacking of cargo and includes, (a) cargo handling services provided for freight in special containers or for non containerised freight, services provided by a container freight terminal or any other freight terminal, for all modes of transport, and cargo handling service incidental to freight; and (b) service of packing together with transportation of cargo or goods, with or without one or more of other services like loading, unloading, unpacking, but does not include, handling of export cargo or passenger baggage or mere transportation of goods; 14. Learned Counsel als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
