2014 (11) TMI 874 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial or industrial construction service - Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the ground that appellant has provided commercial or industrial construction service in respect of cargo agent building constructed by them for M/s. GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd. - Held that - According to Aircraft Act, 1934, aerodrome means any definite or limited ground or water area intended to be used, either wholly or in part, for the landing or departure of aircraft, and includes all buildings, sheds, vessels, piers and other structures thereon or appertaining thereto. She submits with the help of a diagram that cargo agent building constructed by them is appertaining to the parking area of cargo aircrafts and therefore is covered by the definition and therefore is to be excluded from the definition of airport services for payment of service tax. She also relies upon the decision in the case of Archistructural Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 2011(22) STR 663(Tri. Chennai) wherein it was held that air catering unit constructed at the airport can be considered as part of airport and excluded. - after going through the diagram and the submissions made, we find that prima facie case is in favour of the assessee - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Liability to pay service tax for commercial or industrial construction service related to cargo agent building at an airport.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax for providing commercial or industrial construction service in relation to a cargo agent building at an airport. The appellant argued that the exclusion of services related to airports should not apply in this case since the building they constructed is not part of the airport. The appellant's counsel referred to the definition of an airport in the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994, which includes aerodromes as areas for aircraft operations and facilities. The counsel contended that the cargo agent building is directly related to the parking area of cargo aircraft, making it part of the airport and thus excluded from the definition of airport services for service tax purposes. The counsel also cited a previous decision where an air catering unit at an airport was considered part of the airport and excluded. The tribunal found the appellant's arguments convincing, especially after reviewing a diagram presented, and concluded that the prima facie case favored the appellant. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, waiving the predeposit and granting a stay against recovery for 180 days from the date of the order.