2012 (5) TMI 448 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT Overturns Service Tax Demand Decision Due to Lack of Consideration of Evidence

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, allowed the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand of service tax on storage and warehousing ... Demand of service tax along with interest and penalties - appellant had claimed that the amount which is sought added in gross value in storage and warehousing services, is pertaining to rent received for leasing out of godown to various customers and that the amount accounted as 'dispatch money' is nothing but an incentive received for speedy discharge of goods. It is the submission that they had produced various evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) in support of the claim which have not been considered - appellant's claim that he had produced the evidence seems to be correct. It is also seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not considered the said evidence and no findings have been recorded. appeal is allowed by way of remand Issues:- Confirmation of demand of service tax on storage and warehousing service, dispatch money receipts, and freight brokerage.- Consideration of evidence by the Commissioner (Appeals).- Need for remand to reconsider the issue afresh.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, involved an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore, confirming the demand of service tax on storage and warehousing service, dispatch money receipts, and freight brokerage. The Revenue contended that the amounts received by the appellant should be included in the service tax liability under the head of Customs House Agent (CHA). The appellant argued that the amounts were rent for leasing out a godown and incentives for speedy discharge of goods, supported by evidence not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals).Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had indeed presented evidence that was not duly considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted the absence of findings in line with a previous decision and the failure to adhere to principles of natural justice. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration of all issues, emphasizing the need to follow natural justice principles. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the evidence and arguments presented.