TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be liable to payment of Service tax. Commissioner (Appeals), by accepting the respondent's pleas and after going through the agreement between them and M/s. ITC Ltd. has held that they cannot be called as C F agent. The respondents have raised the following grounds before the Commissioner (Appeals): "(i) They did not warehouse goods for ITC Ltd. nor did it received dispatch orders from ITC Ltd. or indeed dispatch the goods under the direction of ITC Ltd. (ii) They do not maintain records of receipt and dispatch of the goods and stock available. (iii) They under Agreement with ITC Ltd. display the ITC Ltd.'s goods in its showroom and sol them by raising its own invoices and did not raise invoices in the name of ITC Ltd. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods. (vi) The appellants shall carry out activities in the showroom aimed at promoting the sale of the goods when called upon to do so and in a manner prescribed by the principal. The principal will reimburse the costs of such promotional campaign based on copies of the relevant vouchers to be submitted. (vii) The goods consigned under this agreement by the principal shall vest at all times with the principal until goods are sold by the appellants and until such sale, the goods shall remain in the custody of the appellants and the appellants shall be the custodian of the same." 3. Accordingly he has observed as under: "The agreement with specific reference to the clauses quoted above would show that the appellants neithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for stocking, display, and sale exclusively from the showroom of the consignor branded apparel. It is also admitted in the appeal memo, that the respondent is to sell the goods at the retail price for a commission of 2%. There is no denial to the fact that such sales is under the respondent's invoices and can be to any person. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chennai - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.-LB), has held that commission agent is not covered by the definition of clearing and forwarding Agent services. Clearing and forwarding agents forward the goods on behalf of the principal to the customer directed by the principal only and are not free to sell the. Same to any person. This is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
