TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents are actually taking orders from the Government departments and basically facilitating the supply of cars to them, getting commission from Maruti Udyog Ltd. for so doing. It is seen that in the judgement in the case of Larsen & Toubro (2006 (6) TMI 3 - CESTAT CHENNAI), the CESTAT (LB) held that mere procuring or booking orders for the principal by an agent on payment of commission would not amount to providing C&F Agent Service. In a similar case of CS Suvarna Vs. CCE Mumbai [2007 (1) TMI 48 - CESTAT,MUMBAI] came to same conclusion. Thus, at least this much is undeniable that procuring the order from the Govt. departments was the main stay of the impugned service and any peripheral aspects thereof would not bring it within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the respondent played the following role: (i) To source orders for M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL) from the Government departments like BSF, CRPF State Police etc., (ii) To liase with MUL for timely production and order execution and to arrange all documentary requirements from the customers for MUL. (iii) At the time of delivery the respondents role was (a) to deliver the vehicle to the customer after due pre delivery inspection and stamp three free service coupon (b) to liase with MUL and the customer, and arrange to send provisional receipt and inspection note to MUL, (c) to arrange way bill or entry permit required for dispatch of vehicle. For the above service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of C F agent service is that the C F agent works on the direction of the principal. But in the present case the respondents are actually taking orders from the Government departments and basically facilitating the supply of cars to them, getting commission from Maruti Udyog Ltd. for so doing. It is seen that in the judgement in the case of Larsen Toubro (supra), the CESTAT (LB) held that mere procuring or booking orders for the principal by an agent on payment of commission would not amount to providing C F Agent Service. In a similar case of CS Suvarna Vs. CCE Mumbai [2007 (7) STR 174 (Tri.-Mum.), CESTAT came to same conclusion. 7. Even if for the sake of Revenue, one goes into hair-splitting argument that unlike in the case of Larsen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
