CHARTERHOUSE DETECTIVE SERVICES Vs. COMMR. OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) We find that in this case the lower appellate authority has rejected the appeal before him, with the following observation:

(3.) IN our considered view, the lower appellate authority has not applied his mind, has not dealt with the issue and the points raised by the Appellants and has not passed a speaking order. The Appellants were clearly providing insurance auxiliary services to their clients who are insurance companies. The same cannot be categorized as security services by any stretch of imagination. The lower appellate authority brands the services provided by the Appellants as security service because of a single word "investigation" appearing in the contract. He has failed to appreciate that investigation has various of meaning and investigation in the context of insurance claims cannot make the service provided by the Appellants into security services. Hence we order the classification of services provided by the Appellants under the category of 'insurance auxiliary services' as claimed by them.