2011 (2) TMI 684 - AT - Service Tax

Clearing and Forwarding (C & F) service - Circular F. No. B.43/7/97-TRU, dated 11-7-1997 - appellants are not receiving the goods from the factories or premises of the manufacturers, rather in the present case, the manufacturers of coir products are supplying the goods to various stores of the appellants - appellants are purchasing and selling the coir products manufactured by different small scale manufacturers though the goods were purchased on credit basis which is normal trade practice and the appellants were retaining only 15% of profit to maintain their offices or showrooms - appellants are not acting on behalf of the manufacturers for selling of the goods, rather the appellants are purchasing the goods from the manufacturers and selling the same to the buyers who visit the showroom - Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Revision Order under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994
- Classification of Coir Board as a provider of Clearing and Forwarding (C & F) service
- Interpretation of the functions of a C & F agent
- Applicability of Circular F. No. B.43/7/97-TRU
- Analysis of the impugned order and the contentions of both parties

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Revision Order under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, by the Coir Board, a Central PSU, constituted under the Coir Industry Act, 1953. The issue revolved around the classification of the Coir Board as a provider of Clearing and Forwarding (C & F) service. Initially, a show-cause notice was issued demanding service tax, treating the Coir Board as a C & F service provider. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, stating that the Coir Board was not obligated to sell goods as per manufacturers' directions. However, the Commissioner reviewed the order and held the Coir Board to be a C & F service provider, citing similarities to a C & F agent.

The main contention of the Coir Board was that they were not acting on behalf of manufacturers but purchasing and selling coir products through their showrooms to identified buyers. They argued that Circular F. No. B.43/7/97-TRU clarified the functions of a C & F agent, which did not align with their operations. The Board's Circular highlighted activities such as receiving goods from factories, preparing invoices on behalf of the principal, and maintaining records, which the Coir Board did not perform. Invoices were prepared in the name of the Coir Board, and goods were sold to buyers visiting the showroom, not as per manufacturers' directions.

The Tribunal analyzed the definition of a C & F agent under Section 65(12) of the Finance Act and the functions outlined in the Circular. It was observed that the Coir Board did not engage in activities typical of a C & F agent, such as receiving goods from manufacturers' premises or following manufacturers' dispatch orders. Instead, they purchased goods from manufacturers and sold them to buyers directly, retaining a fixed profit percentage. Based on these findings, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the Coir Board and allowing the appeal.