Appeal allowed, remanded for decision on merits. Financial hardship plea considered, penalty pre-deposit waived. Hearing opportunity directed.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits. The appellant's plea of financial hardship was considered, leading to the waiver of the pre-deposit of penalty for hearing the appeal on merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before making a decision, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Appellant's liability to pay service tax under "Cargo Handling Services" category.
2. Imposition of penalty under sections 75A, 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Appeal dismissal for non-compliance of stay order.
4. Plea of financial hardship by the appellant.
5. Appellant's deposit of entire service tax amount along with interest.
6. Consideration for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty.
7. Remand of the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was engaged in providing loading, stacking, and unloading services for cement in godowns on a contract basis. They were notified by the Service Tax Department about their liability to pay service tax under the "Cargo Handling Services" category. The appellant deposited the entire tax amount along with interest upon receiving the notice. A show-cause notice proposing penalty under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994 was issued, and the Original Authority imposed a penalty. The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with a stay order.

2. The appellant, citing financial hardship, pleaded before the Commissioner (Appeals) that they were a small entrepreneur and had acted in good faith by depositing the tax upon becoming aware of their liability. The Judicial Member found that the appellant had indeed provided "Cargo Handling Services" as per the contract and had acted in good faith by depositing the tax before the show-cause notice. Considering these factors, the Judicial Member deemed it appropriate to waive the pre-deposit of the penalty for hearing the appeal on merits and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits.

3. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a decision on merits. It was clarified that the observations made in the order would not influence the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on merit. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the directive for the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before making a decision. The stay application was disposed of in light of these considerations.

---