9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of the assessee in Bangladesh. The Revenue proceeded to levy Service tax on the appellants on the ground that they have rendered service under the category of Clearing & Forwarding Agents. The appellants denied that they have carried on any activity under the Finance Act for levy of Service tax more particularly, under the category of C&F Agents. The Assistant Commissioner gave a detailed finding accepting the assessee's plea. While doing so, he examined the activity of M/s. Cross Links, Bangladesh. The findings recorded by him in paras 9 to 12 are reproduced herein below: "9. Let me delve into the definition of Clearing and Forwarding Agents to find out whether the activity undertaken by the Agent falls under the purview of clause 25 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principal to its storage and delivery to the customers. (iv) Now the term "Consignment Agent" is also included in the definition of C&F Agent and as it has not been specifically defined, it can be construed in common commercial practice, the principal send the goods to the Consignment Agent known as consignee for the purpose of sale and distribution. The consignee is entitled for agreed commission/remuneration for his services. (v) A Consignment agent's job is to receive the goods from the Principal and dispatch them on the directions of the Principal. 10. The liability to pay service tax in relation to C&F operations, lies with the C&F Agent as per the Supreme Court judgment issued in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice provider, providing service for the period from 1-1-2003 to 30- 11-2003, who is a foreigner and is not bound by the laws in force in India. 12. In a nutshell, the issue involved in this case is M/s. Cross Links, Bangladesh, was appointed as a promoting agent to market the product of the assessee in the jurisdiction of Bangladesh which are beyond the territorial waters of India. Since Service tax being the consumption based tax as the service and is rendered beyond the territory of India, we have no Authority to demand the Service tax. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER I drop further proceedings initiated against the assessee vide Show Cause Notice in C. No. IV/09/298/2004 dated 26-4-2004." This order was reviewed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded under Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Rules since entire services were provided outside India i.e. in Bangladesh and Service Tax is destination based consumption tax. In this regard, the Board's Circular No. 56/5/2003-S.T. dated 25-4-2003 is relied. The learned Counsel also relies on the Larger Bench ruling rendered in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321(Tri.-LB) which also has considered the aspect pertaining to the category of Clearing & Forwarding Agent. It has been ruled therein that mere booking orders for the principal by an agent on commission basis would not come under the C&F category. The learned Counsel submits that the proposition in the present case is also similar, as the appellants have exported the pharmac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Commissioner clearly held that the Agent in Bangladesh was liable for Service Tax, as he was the Clearing & Forwarding Agent and as he was situated outside the country, he cannot be brought within the ambit of Service Tax. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Commissioner that they have not challenged the aspect of assessment is not correct. The Assistant Commissioner had clearly held that the assessee were not C&F Agent and he submits that in view of the case-laws produced and the Circular noted by him, the levy of Service Tax on the appellants treating them as C&F Agent is to be set aside. 5. On a careful consideration, it is clear from the facts that the appellants were only manufacturers of Pharmaceutical goods. They have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the C&F category. In the case of Chennai Telephones as well as in the case of CCE, Chennai v. M.R.F. Ltd. - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 434 (Tribunal) = 2005 (179) E.L.T. 472 (Tri.-Chennai), it has been held that subsequent clarifications will not be applicable to past cases. In view of the well taken stand by the appellants, which was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner, I find no reason to uphold the impugned order. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is correct in law. There is no merit in the impugned order. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
