2013 (5) TMI 593 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of duty Clearing and forwarding agent - Demand is dropped by the adjudicating authority on the ground that by temporarily storing the vehicles cleared by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd for DGS&D, they are not providing the services of clearing and forwarding agent. The vehicles supplied under the DGS&D rate contract are directly sold by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. from their working factory gate under their own invoice and freight transit insurance policy are paid by the buyers to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd arranging the delivery of the vehicles from the direction of their various dealers located nearest consignee location. Held that - Relying on the decision of the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CCE Panchkula vs. Kulcip Medicines P. Ltd. 2009 (2) TMI 89 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT as confirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court. Therefore the impugned order is not correct and the order of the original adjudicating authority dropping the demand against the appellant is required to be upheld.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty demand against the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Determination of whether the appellant acted as a clearing and forwarding agent for M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd.
3. Appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the confirmation of duty demand against the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, an authorized service station of Maruti Udyog Ltd, was involved in supplying vehicles to DGS&D under a contract with Maruti Udyog Ltd. The Revenue raised a demand, considering the appellant as a clearing and forwarding agent for Maruti Udyog Ltd. The original adjudicating authority dropped the show cause notice, stating that the appellant was not providing clearing and forwarding services by temporarily storing vehicles. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal, leading to the present appeal.

2. The key issue was whether the appellant was acting as a clearing and forwarding agent for Maruti Udyog Ltd. The Tribunal analyzed the activities of the appellant, noting that they were not invoicing Maruti Udyog Ltd and were merely a transit point for vehicles sold directly to DGS&D by Maruti Udyog Ltd. The dealer was facilitating the delivery of vehicles to DGS&D without receiving any commission. The Tribunal referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court to support its conclusion that the appellant could not be considered a clearing and forwarding agent. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and reinstated the original adjudicating authority's order dropping the demand against the appellant.

3. The judgment concludes by setting aside the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the original adjudicating authority's order in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not qualify as a clearing and forwarding agent based on the specific circumstances of the case and legal precedents cited. The judgment emphasizes the appellant's role as a transit point for vehicles and the absence of commission payments, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the duty demand confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).