9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Taxability of services rendered by the appellant as a C&F Agent.
Summary: The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal regarding the taxability of services provided by the appellant as a C&F Agent. The revenue contended that the appellant was acting as a C&F Agent based on evidence of commission income in the balance sheet. The adjudicating authority concluded that the appellant indeed provided C&F Agent services as a middleman between principal and procurer. The appellant argued that the services provided did not fall under the category of a C&F Agent based on the agreement clause, which required coordination activities with customers but did not encompass all typical C&F Agent activities. The Central Excise Trade Notice clarified the role of a C&F Agent, including receiving goods, warehousing, arranging dispatch, maintaining records, and preparing invoices, which the appellant was not fully engaged in. The revenue believed that C&F Agent services should involve a broader range of activities, as per the Trade Notice. However, the agreement presented did not align with the typical responsibilities of a C&F Agent. The lower authorities had relied on a previous Tribunal decision, which was later overruled by a Larger Bench decision, leading to the success of the appellant's appeal. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted consequential relief, if any.
|
