2006 (12) TMI 13 - AT - Service Tax

Demand(Service tax )- Clearing and Forwarding Agent- Alleged that on appellant s activity service tax were liable- After considering the details the decision were made in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of service tax liability for activities related to purchasing and reselling products from manufacturers, treatment of special discounts as service charges, determination of ownership in purchase transactions, consideration of activities like promotion, advertisement, and sales as part of dealer's job, and evaluation of relationship between distributor and manufacturer for service tax purposes.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the liability to pay service tax in a Service Tax matter concerning the appellant's activities related to purchasing and reselling products from manufacturers like Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., M/s Timken, and M/s Eicher. The agreements between the appellant and the manufacturers required the appellant to establish facilities, deploy trained labor, advertise, and display the products. The department contended that these activities were akin to clearing and forwarding operations, making the appellant liable for service tax, including on special discounts provided by the manufacturers.

The Tribunal considered the appellant's role as a purchaser and seller from the principals, emphasizing that ownership of the goods transferred to the appellant upon purchase. As the owner, dealer, or transferee of the goods, it was in the appellant's interest to undertake sales promotion activities, advertisement, and maintain trained staff, which were integral to the dealer's job. The Tribunal held that these activities did not constitute services rendered to the manufacturers. Any special relationship or additional consideration leading to lower prices could affect the valuation of goods but should not be construed as service charges. The Tribunal deemed the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to treat the appellant as a provider of clearing and forwarding services as erroneous.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential benefits to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the appellant's role as a distributor and the services provided to the manufacturers, clarifying the nature of activities undertaken in the course of purchasing and reselling products. The decision underscored the importance of ownership, promotional activities, and the absence of a service relationship between the parties in determining service tax liability.