https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271889 The Court acknowledged a delay in filing the appeal, condoning it due to the proposed order's nature. The Appellant contested the classification of services as Cargo Handling Service, resulting in setting aside the service tax demand. The Court clarified its jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the limited scope for substantial legal questions. It criticized the departmental representative's failure to oppose contentions, leading to the appeal's allowance. The Appellant alleged non-consideration of arguments by the Tribunal, but the Court advised addressing the Tribunal first. Referring to legal precedents, the Court dismissed the appeal, stressing the importance of addressing discrepancies promptly. en-us Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 May 2016 16:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271889 The Court acknowledged a delay in filing the appeal, condoning it due to the proposed order's nature. The Appellant contested the classification of services as Cargo Handling Service, resulting in setting aside the service tax demand. The Court clarified its jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the limited scope for substantial legal questions. It criticized the departmental representative's failure to oppose contentions, leading to the appeal's allowance. The Appellant alleged non-consideration of arguments by the Tribunal, but the Court advised addressing the Tribunal first. Referring to legal precedents, the Court dismissed the appeal, stressing the importance of addressing discrepancies promptly. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271889