2018 (9) TMI 750 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of service - classifiable under Cargo Handling Service or under Site formation and clearance service? - Held that - The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not recorded any reason as to why the services rendered by the appellant be classified under the Site formation services as alleged by Revenue and not cargo handling service, as claimed by the appellant - the order is devoid of reasoning and non-speaking one. Matter remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to record reasons on the classification of the services as claimed by the appellant vis-a-vis alleged by the Revenue after affording an opportunity to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of services for service tax - Cargo Handling Service vs. Site Formation and Clearance Service

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur. The appellant claimed to provide taxable services under Cargo Handling Service category, but the department alleged the services were Site Formation and Clearance Service. A demand notice for unpaid service tax was issued, leading to confirmation of the demand with interest and penalty. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, prompting the present appeal.

The appellant's advocate argued that the impugned order lacked reasoning and should be set aside. He contended that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to discuss the correct classification of services rendered by the appellant, leading to the demand confirmation. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative stated that due to the lack of evidence supporting the claim of providing cargo handling service, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rightly upheld the order. The Revenue had no objection to remanding the case for further review.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the authorities confirmed the demand under Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving, and Demolition Services categories, contrary to the appellant's claim of providing cargo handling service. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide reasoning for classifying the services under Site Formation services as alleged by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to record reasons for classification after allowing the appellant an opportunity to present relevant documents.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a reasoned classification of services between cargo handling and site formation as per the claims of the appellant and the allegations of the Revenue.