Speaking order requirement defeats unreasoned service tax demand on disputed receipts; matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Service tax demand and penalties could not be sustained where the adjudicating authority failed to give reasons connecting the disputed receipts to Customs House Agent or Cargo and Forwarding agency services. The order-in-original confirmed liability largely because the assessee had not produced evidence, without a reasoned examination of the accounts, the nature of fees, reimbursements, freight-related receipts and other income heads, or the computation of tax. The absence of a speaking order and the need to determine taxability activity-wise made the order unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration with directions to pass a reasoned order after examining the records.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of service tax and penalties could be sustained when the adjudicating authority had not given reasons linking the impugned receipts to Customs House Agent services or Cargo and Forwarding agency services and had shifted the burden of proof onto the assessee.

Analysis: The order-in-original did not discuss how the disputed receipts, including fees, reimbursements, freight-related receipts and other income heads, fell within the scope of taxable CHA or C&F services. The demand was confirmed mainly on the ground that the assessee had not produced evidence, without a reasoned examination of the accounts or the nature of the receipts. The absence of a speaking order, together with the challenge to the computation and the severe penalty imposed, rendered the order unsustainable. The matter therefore required fresh scrutiny of the records and a reasoned determination of taxability for each activity.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration with a direction to pass a reasoned order after examining the records.

---