Service tax classification requires consistent factual findings; inconsistent treatment of the same activities led to remand for fresh adjudication.

Service tax demands could not be sustained where the impugned orders classified the same activities on inconsistent factual bases, treating them alternatively as after-sales and customer-support services under Business Auxiliary Service and as warehousing or clearing and forwarding operations under Clearing and Forwarding Agent service. Because the record did not clearly establish the true nature of the services, the basis of classification, or the exemption position, the matter required fresh adjudication. The disputes were remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration on a proper factual foundation and after addressing the parties' submissions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demands of service tax under Business Auxiliary Service and Clearing and Forwarding Agent service could be sustained on the facts recorded in the two impugned orders, and whether the matters required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The impugned orders proceeded on inconsistent factual bases. In one order, the activities were treated as after-sales and customer-support services falling within Business Auxiliary Service and linked to denial of exemption under Notification No. 13/2003-ST. In the other, the same broad set of activities was treated as warehousing, clearing and forwarding operations covered by the scope of Clearing and Forwarding Agent service as reflected in the departmental circular. The factual findings were not reconciled, and the record did not clearly establish the true nature of the services, the basis of classification, or the entitlement to exemption. The contradictory treatment of the same activities for overlapping periods showed that the matter had not been properly determined on a clear factual foundation.

Conclusion: The service tax demands could not be sustained on the existing record, and both matters had to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after proper consideration of the facts and submissions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual basis for classification of taxable services is unclear and the impugned orders proceed on inconsistent findings, the demand cannot be finally sustained and the matter must be remitted for fresh adjudication on a proper factual foundation.

---