TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich he has dropped the Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent, Revenue has filed the present appeal. It is noted that Show Cause Notice dated 10-8-2004, was issued to the respondent raising demand of services tax for the period 19-19-2003 alleging that during the said period, they have provided services of C F agent to M/s. GSFC Ltd. and M/s. Bayer ABC Ltd. 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri. N. Pathak learned A.R. for revenue and Ms. Swati Gupta, Ld. CA and, after going through the impugned order, we find that Commissioner has gone through the agreements entered into by the respondent and their principals and has held as follows : However, the key issue which stands disputed is regarding dispatching of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to sell directly in case the goods were not sold by the party within a specified period. These facts have also been corroborated by Sh. D.J. Shah, General Manager (Finance) or M/s. Bayer ABC Ltd. vide letter dated 31-7-2003 and statement dated 30-1-2004. Thus, it is amply clear and evident that the party was required to sell and not dispatch the gods as per the directions of the principal. Moreover, there is no evidence explicitly or implicitly provided in the agreement that the goods were to be dispatched to the customers in accordance with the directions of the principals or the owners of the goods. The arrangement merely state that the goods were to be sold within stipulated period and not in the form of distribution or dispatching t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eive the dispatch orders from the principal and does not arrange dispatch of the goods as per the direction of the principal. The Hon ble Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. Since, it is further evident that the commission, ORC and discounts were towards the impugned services i.e. causing sale of goods of the principals/owners of the goods such consideration is not towards provision of taxable services under C F agent. Hence, the demand of impugned Service Tax as stated in the SCN under Section 73 of the Act ibid and interest thereon under Section 75 of the Act ibid is not sustainable. The proposed penalties on the party under Sections 75A, 76, 77 78 of the Act ibid are also not sustainable as the alleged demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. the reported 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.-LB). It was held that C F agents services are essentially in connection with clearing and forwarding operations of the principal. 6. In view of the terms of the agreement between the respondent and their principal, we note that the respondents were free to sell the goods to their own customers and were not merely dispatching the goods on the orders of their principal. Further, the invoice was being issued by the respondent themselves. As such we agree with the conclusion adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent can not be held to be C F agent. Further we note that apart from various decisions relied upon by the Commissioner the present issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
