2007 (6) TMI 6 - AT - Service Tax

Clearing and Forwarding Agent Revenue contended that appellant activity is fall under clearing and forwarding agent not under the consignment Agent Held that the activity of appellant is fall under consignment agent and he is not liable to pay service tax

Summary

Issues:
Revenue appeals against Orders-in-Appeals on the classification of assessees as 'Consignment Agents' instead of 'Clearing & Forwarding Agents.'

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, involved a common issue regarding the classification of the assessees as 'Consignment Agents' as opposed to 'Clearing & Forwarding Agents.' The Revenue was aggrieved by Orders-in-Appeals, specifically OIA No. 211/2005-CE, OIA No. 20/2006 (ST), and OIA No. 46/2006-CE passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore.

The Commissioner (A) in the impugned orders had determined that the assessees were engaged in the activity of 'Consignment Agent,' a classification distinct from 'Clearing & Forwarding Agent.' This decision was based on a Tribunal ruling in the case of M/s. Mahavir Generics v. CCE, Bangalore. The Revenue, however, disputed this ruling and presented various grounds to support their contention.

During the proceedings, the learned JDR reiterated the grounds of appeal, while the learned Counsel argued that the issue had already been settled by a Larger Bench judgment in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE. Additionally, the Counsel submitted a list of several judgments, including Mitsun Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, and Vaman Pharma Private Limited v. CCE, to support their position.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the issue had been conclusively decided in favor of the assessees in the judgments cited. The Tribunal highlighted that the reliance placed by the Revenue on a previous ruling involving M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory had been overruled by the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that the activity of procuring orders was distinct and separate from clearing and forwarding operations, as recognized under Business Auxiliary Services.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that there were no valid grounds to deviate from the established legal position. The decision was based on the precedent set by the Larger Bench judgment, affirming the classification of the assessees as 'Consignment Agents.' The operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open Court upon the conclusion of the hearing.