2019 (2) TMI 489 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - clearing and forwarding agent service or not? - validity of SCN - Held that - On going through the impugned order, it is found that the same is cryptic and devoid of reasons inasmuch as the issue raised before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had not at all been considered while passing the order - matter remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to consider all aspects of the case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the services provided by the appellant qualify as clearing and forwarding agent service.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mumbai-IV, demanding service tax from the appellant for the period November 2002 to September 2003. The appellant, engaged in freight forwarding and consolidating services, argued that the services provided by them involved arranging space in airlines and ships, earning profits as an intermediary, and should not be taxed under the category of clearing and forwarding agent service. They cited judgments to support their claim. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal without considering the grounds raised or the legal principles cited by the appellant. The appellant contended that the order lacked reasons and should be set aside. The Revenue accepted the lack of reasoning in the order and did not object to remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was cryptic and lacked reasons. The issue at hand was whether the services provided by the appellant qualified as clearing and forwarding agent service. The appellant argued that they earned profits on freight by arranging services, distinct from the services of a clearing and forwarding agent. The Tribunal noted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the raised issues, necessitating the setting aside of the order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision after affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal emphasized that all issues were kept open for consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Therefore, the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a comprehensive reconsideration of the case, ensuring all aspects are duly examined and the appellant is given a fair hearing.