2014 (7) TMI 981 - AT - Service Tax

Transport of goods from one airport to another - benefit of Notification No.29/2005-St - transport of export cargo from the airport to airport - Held that - notification talks about providing of the services in relation to transportation of goods while in the case in hand the issue regarding transportation of goods between two air ports and rendered to another agency i.e. FedEx or as the case may be. Since the issue requires deeper consideration and needs to be appreciated from various documents on record, we find that the appellant has to be put to some condition for hearing and disposing the appeal on merit - appellant has not made out a prima facie strong case for complete waiver of the amounts involved - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues involved: Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax liability, interest, and penalties based on the interpretation of courier agency services and exemption for export of goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Service Tax liability on the appellant
The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the appellant after finding a short payment of Service Tax liability upon reconciling the profit & loss account with ST-3 returns. The appellant claimed the amount received was for exempted services not liable to Service Tax. The defense presented was that the activity of transporting export cargo between airports does not fall under courier agency services but under door-to-door transportation of goods. Reference was made to a High Court judgment defining courier agencies and a CBEC circular clarifying door-to-door delivery as courier agency services. The appellant argued that since all services related to export of goods are exempted, there should be no Service Tax liability.

Issue 2: Interpretation of courier agency services
The Departmental Representative argued that the appellant provided services to FedEx abroad, not to individuals, and was not engaged in air freight or courier agency activities. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's services involved moving goods between airports and billing another entity who then billed the ultimate recipient. The Tribunal found the issue to be complex, requiring deeper consideration. The appellant was directed to deposit a specified amount pending further review, as the interpretation of courier agency definition in relation to the exemption for export of goods needed thorough examination. The Tribunal allowed the waiver of pre-deposit for the balance amounts pending appeal disposal.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex issue of Service Tax liability concerning the interpretation of courier agency services and the exemption for export of goods. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a partial deposit while the appeal was pending, emphasizing the need for further examination and consideration due to the debatable nature of the issue.