Service classification requires reasoned findings; inadequate reasoning on consultancy versus repair services led to remand for fresh decision.

Classification of the services was disputed between management, maintenance or repair service and consultancy service, and the appellate order was found unsustainable because it gave no adequate reasons for adopting the consultancy classification. The absence of detailed reasoning prevented effective examination of the issue and did not satisfy natural justice. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter was remanded to the First Appellate Authority for fresh decision after proper consideration of the correct service classification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the First Appellate Authority required to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on the correct classification of the services and for want of detailed reasoning.

Analysis: The adjudication order indicated that the services rendered by the appellant were capable of falling under management, maintenance or repair service, whereas the First Appellate Authority had classified them as consultancy service without giving adequate reasons. The absence of detailed reasoning in support of the appellate order prevented effective examination of the matter. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the First Appellate Authority after following the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the First Appellate Authority for fresh decision.

---