Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President - Appeal No. ST/89/2011 and ST/90/2011 are by M/s. Lee & Muirhead Pvt. Ltd., against the Orders-in-Original Nos. 53 & 54/2010, dated 25.11.2010 by which Commissioner has confirmed demands of service tax of Rs. 23,89,689/- for the period 18.04.2006 to 30.06.2007 and Rs. 1,66,880/- for the period from 01.07.2007 to 31.03.2008 along with interest and imposed penalties on the appellants. Stay applications ST/S/66/2011 and ST/AS/67/2011 are in these appeals.

1.1 Appeals No. ST/83/2011 and ST/84/2011 are by the department against the very same impugned orders Nos. 53 & 54/2011, dated 25.11.2011 insofar as the same related to the Commissioner dropping parts of the demand proposed by the two show-cause notices.

2. Heard both sides for a while on the stay petition filed by the appellants. Waiver of pre-deposit of dues as per the impugned order was sought for on the ground that the adjudicating Commissioner has not considered the documentary evidence submitted in respect of certain categories of expenses claimed as reimbursement even though the documents have been submitted before the authorities. It was also submitted that the Commissioner has not given a firm finding against the appellants in respect of expenses whose reimbursement was disallowed. We are of the considered opinion that the appeals of the parties required to be remanded to the original authority for consideration afresh for the reasons to be recorded below and, therefore, we waive pre-deposit of the dues as per the impugned orders and proceed to dispose of the appeals finally. As the learned SDR also brought to our notice that there are appeals filed by the department as mentioned above and that they are also seeking remand of the matter for fresh consideration, the said appeals were also ordered to be listed and taken up for final disposal.

3.1 The relevant facts in brief are that M/s. Lee & Muirhead Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in providing Customs House Agents services to various customers in relation to import and export of goods.

3.2 During the course of audit of accounts of the said assessee, it was noticed that, in addition to service charges for the Customs House Agents service, the assessee has collected various charges under different headings and did not include the same for determining the value of CHA services. Accordingly, a show-cause notice No.253/08, dated 29.09.2008 proposing demand of service tax of Rs. 3,49,08,472/- relating to the period 18.04.2006 to 30.06.2007 and another show-cause notice No.334/08, dated 22.10.2008 proposing demand of Rs. 39,38,1414/ relating to the period 01.01.2007 to 31.03.2008 were issued. Show-cause notices also proposed recovery of interest and imposition of penalties.

3.3 The assessee contested the demands by filing replies dated 28.10.2008 and 11.11.2008. They were personally heard by the Commissioner on 28.01.2010. They filed vide letter dated 06.02.2010 copies of invoices along with a 'CD' containing the listing of non-taxable invoices. Thereafter, they were again personally heard by the Commissioner on 19.02.2010.

3.4 Due to transfer of the Commissioner who heard the assessee on 28.01.2010 and 19.02.2010 another personal hearing was granted by the newly joined Commissioner on 14.07.2010. After the personal hearing before the present adjudicating authority, the assessee produced vide letter dated 26.07.2010 copies of invoices and supporting documents relating to the period 01.06.2006 to 07.06.2006, 08.01.07 to 15.01.2007, 16.05.2007 to 23.05.2007 and 01.03.2008 to 07.03.2008. Commissioner vide impugned order came to the conclusion that the expenses recovered under 15 heads qualified to be considered as expenses incurred as "Pure Agent" and accordingly dropped the substantial portion of the demand. However, in respect of expenses under 14 heads, though the Commissioner felt that some of them might come under the scope of "Pure Agent", disallowed the claim for exclusion for want of support