https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757700 CESTAT Kolkata set aside service tax demand against assessee for cargo handling and construction services. The tribunal held that service tax liability cannot be imposed on unidentified services where the revenue failed to specify the nature of activity or classify services under particular taxable categories. The demand was raised merely by comparing balance sheet figures with ST-3 returns without proper investigation. For cargo handling services, the tribunal ruled that supplying manpower for loading cement in trucks/wagons does not qualify as cargo handling service, following precedent in assessee's own earlier case. Construction service demand was also unsustainable as the adjudicating authority failed to specify the service category. Consequently, penalties under Sections 77(1)(a), 77(1)(b), 77(1)(c) of Finance Act 1994 and Rule 7C were set aside. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Aug 2024 11:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757700 CESTAT Kolkata set aside service tax demand against assessee for cargo handling and construction services. The tribunal held that service tax liability cannot be imposed on unidentified services where the revenue failed to specify the nature of activity or classify services under particular taxable categories. The demand was raised merely by comparing balance sheet figures with ST-3 returns without proper investigation. For cargo handling services, the tribunal ruled that supplying manpower for loading cement in trucks/wagons does not qualify as cargo handling service, following precedent in assessee's own earlier case. Construction service demand was also unsustainable as the adjudicating authority failed to specify the service category. Consequently, penalties under Sections 77(1)(a), 77(1)(b), 77(1)(c) of Finance Act 1994 and Rule 7C were set aside. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757700