Tribunal Overturns Service Tax Demand: Revenue Fails to Prove Cargo Handling Service; Appellant Granted Relief.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the decisions of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) that had confirmed the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties against the appellant. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove that the appellant provided "Cargo Handling Agency Service." It determined that the appellant, as an individual business, was exempt from the service tax, thereby setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) and confirmation of demand of service tax, interest, and penalties by the Assistant Commissioner.

Issue 1: Rejection of Appeal and Confirmation of Demand:
The appellant challenged the Impugned order dated 26.9.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which rejected the appeal and upheld the Order in Original dated 20.2.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 89,340/- under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under section 75 and imposed penalties under sections 77 and 78 on the appellant.

Details:
The audit team of the department visited M/s. Bajrang Metallic Pvt. Ltd. and concluded that the appellant provided "Cargo Handling Agency Service" during a specific period. The appellant disputed this claim, stating they only provided manpower supply services and never engaged in Cargo Handling Services. The appellant argued that service tax could not be levied on them as they were an individual business, not an agency, citing a CBEC letter. The appellant also contended that no evidence proved the provision of Cargo Handling Agency Service. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand without establishing that the appellant provided the specific service. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating the Revenue failed to prove the provision of the service and that the appellant, being an individual, was exempt from the service tax.

Final Decision:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief to the appellant.

---