9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Revision Order No. 1/2004-2005 dated 4-8-2004, passed by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants are Coir Board, a Central PSU, constituted under the Coir Industry Act, 1953. The purpose under this Act is to establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irections of the manufacturers. 3. The adjudication order was reviewed by the Commissioner vide the impugned order and the appellants were held to be a provider of C & F service on the ground that the appellants are bringing the goods from the manufacturers and receive dispatch orders from the manufacturers. It is the contention that the role of appellants is similar to that of C & F agent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uyers who visit the showroom and not as per the directions of the manufacturers. Invoices are also prepared in the name of Coir Board only. Therefore the appellants are not providing any service of clearing and forwarding including consignment agent. Therefore the demand is not sustainable. 5. The learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied upon the findings in the impugned order s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceiving the goods from the factories or premises of the principal or his agents; (b) Warehousing these goods; (c) Receiving dispatch orders from the principal; (d) Arranging dispatch of goods as per the directions of the principal by engaging transport on his own or through the authorized transporters of the principal; (e) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the name of manufacturers. The appellants are purchasing and selling the coir products manufactured by different small scale manufacturers though the goods were purchased on credit basis which is normal trade practice and the appellants were retaining only 15% of profit to maintain their offices or showrooms. In view of these facts, we find that the appellants are not acting on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
