2009 (5) TMI 396 - AT - Service Tax

Security Agency services- The activities carried out by the Appellant is only providing security agency services. Such aspect was subject matter of appeal in ST-129/2005 before Tribunal for the period 1998 to 2000 and that was decided against appellant. After that period, by the impugned orders, all of sudden, Deptt. Reclassified the same nature of service under the category of manpower recruitment/supply agency. This aspect of the matter was decided by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) against the appellant and appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) while rejecting the modification application. Held that- the matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to hear appeal on merits and pass a speaking order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of modification application without considering prima facie case.
2. Reclassification of service provided by the appellant.
3. Dismissal of appeal for failure to make pre-deposit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant had moved a stay application during the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was disposed of by an order dated 22-10-2008. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application for modification of that order, which was rejected without considering the prima facie case of the appellant. The appellant had made a deposit prior to the stay order, which was appropriated against the demand. The Tribunal found that the appellant should not be deprived of a fair hearing and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal on merit, emphasizing the need for a reasoned speaking order.

2. The appellant's activities were related to providing security agency services, which had been the subject of a previous appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Department reclassified the service under the category of manpower recruitment/supply agency for a later period. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appellant's appeal and modification application, leading to the Tribunal's intervention. The Tribunal observed that the reclassification required thorough consideration and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter on merit, considering all evidence on record.

3. The Department supported the decisions of the lower authorities, arguing that the Tribunal's previous decision might not be applicable due to the changed nature of the service provided by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed for the appellant's failure to make a pre-deposit. However, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the record, concluded that the appellant deserved a fair hearing on the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeal comprehensively, dismissing the stay application and instructing a detailed consideration of the appellant's case.

This judgment highlights the importance of fair consideration of a party's case, proper examination of evidence, and the need for reasoned orders in legal proceedings to ensure justice and procedural fairness.