Appeal allowed, Commissioner's service tax order set aside. Tribunal's authority post-19-08-2009 confirmed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order regarding the liability of the appellant to pay service tax on rental income received for warehousing and storage of goods. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed its authority to entertain appeals against Orders-in-Revision issued by the Commissioner post-19-08-2009, in the absence of a specific savings clause.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on rental income received for warehousing and storage of goods in addition to commission as a Clearing and Forwarding Agent.
2. Whether an appeal can be entertained by the Tribunal against an Order-in-Revision issued by the Commissioner post-19-08-2009 in the absence of a specific savings clause in section 86.

Issue 1:

The appellant, engaged in Clearing and Forwarding Agent services, received rental income for warehousing and storage of goods in addition to commission. The Revenue demanded service tax on the rental amounts collected, which the appellant disputed. The Commissioner held that the rental income was part of the Clearing and Forwarding Agent services provided by the appellant to a specific client, thus liable for service tax. The appellant argued that renting of immovable property was not taxable during the relevant period and the rental income should not be taxed. The Tribunal examined whether the rental amount should be included in the value of taxable services rendered. It was concluded that the renting of immovable property was not a taxable service during that period, and as the appellant was already discharging service tax on the commission received for Clearing and Forwarding services, the rental income need not be taxed. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order.

Issue 2:

The second issue revolved around the Tribunal's authority to entertain an appeal against an Order-in-Revision issued by the Commissioner post-19-08-2009 without a specific savings clause in section 86. The Tribunal, relying on the General Clauses Act 1897, held that it could decide such appeals even in the absence of an explicit provision. This issue was previously addressed by the Tribunal Bangalore, establishing that CESTAT can entertain appeals against Orders-in-Revision passed by the Commissioner after 19-08-2009, despite the absence of a saving clause in section 86.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order regarding the liability of the appellant to pay service tax on rental income received for warehousing and storage of goods. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed its authority to entertain appeals against Orders-in-Revision issued by the Commissioner post-19-08-2009, in the absence of a specific savings clause.

---