2009 (2) TMI 356 - AT - Service Tax

Cargo handling services- non speaking order- Commissioner (Appeals) held that appellant has not provided cargo handling services. The commissioner (Appeals) not examined the material records agreement and letter of appointment thus no finding given by it. Held that- remand back the matter to the commissioner for passing a speaking and reasonable order.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Legal infirmity in the order-in-appeal
2. Determination of whether the appellant is a cargo handling agency
3. Examination of services provided by the respondent
4. Invocation of exemption limit for grant of relief
5. Necessity of reasoned order by the Commissioner
6. Requirement for thorough examination to ascertain liability
7. Remand of the appeal for further assessment

Analysis:
1. The learned DR argued that the order-in-appeal had legal infirmity and objected to the findings, emphasizing the need to determine if the appellant is a cargo handling agency. The learned DR stressed the importance of examining all services provided by the respondent to invoke the exemption limit for granting relief. The order was deemed to have misdirected itself, and it was suggested that a thorough examination was necessary to ascertain liability and determine if the threshold limit is applicable.

2. The learned Commissioner's conclusion that the appellant did not provide cargo handling services was challenged as not being supported by the material on record. It was highlighted that a decision on whether the appellant falls under the category of "cargo handling service" should be based on a detailed examination of the relevant evidence, such as agreements or appointment letters. The need for a comprehensive analysis of all services provided by the respondent was emphasized to determine liability and assess the applicability of the threshold limit.

3. In light of the observations made, it was deemed essential to refer the matter back to the learned Commissioner for a reevaluation. The Commissioner was directed to provide the respondent with a fair opportunity for a hearing and to handle the matter in accordance with the law, ensuring a well-reasoned and detailed order. The remand of the appeal was considered necessary to ensure justice for both parties involved.

This judgment highlights the significance of a thorough examination of evidence and legal considerations in determining liability and assessing the applicability of exemption limits. The need for reasoned orders and fair opportunities for hearings are emphasized to ensure a just outcome in legal proceedings.