2014 (8) TMI 26 - AT - Service Tax

C&F agent service - Assessee appointed as market organisers by PPL - Held that - assessee are performing the function of only placing the order for commissioning is also evidenced by the documents - C&F agreement with Heera Drug House is entirely different from the agreement entered into between the agreement and PPL here which again supports the case of the appellant. Further records show that while placing purchase orders, appellant indicates the name of C&F agent through whom goods have to be supplied which would also show that appellant cannot be a C&F agent - role of the appellant is more appropriately covered by business auxiliary service and not C&F agent service has considerable force. Accordingly, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of service tax liability for marketing and promoting services provided by an appellant acting as a market organizer for a principal company.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the service tax liability of an appellant engaged in marketing and promoting goods manufactured by their principal company. The revenue contended that the appellant, acting as a market organizer, should be treated as a Clearing and Forwarding (C&F) agent and be liable to pay service tax. The proceedings initiated resulted in a demand for service tax, interest, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994.

The terms of the agreement between the appellant and the principal company outlined various services provided by the appellant, including distribution services, sales promotional activities, market forecasting, and supervising marketing activities. The appellant's role was to coordinate and supervise the work of clearing and forwarding agents, among other responsibilities.

The appellant argued that they did not handle goods directly during the material period and only focused on promotion and marketing activities. They highlighted that the principal company made direct payments for clearance and transportation to the C&F agent. A comparison with an agreement between another company and the principal showed differences in roles, supporting the appellant's position.

The revenue argued that the appellant's activities fell under the definition of a clearing agent, as they were connected with clearing and forwarding operations. They emphasized that the appellant could appoint C&F agents and supervise their work, indicating a connection to C&F operations. Legal precedents were cited to support both positions.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's role aligned more with business auxiliary services rather than that of a C&F agent. They referenced the decision of a Larger Bench and a High Court case that supported the appellant's argument. Discrepancies in the C&F agreement with another company and the appellant's practice of indicating C&F agents for supply further strengthened the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the impugned order could not be sustained on merits. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment highlighted the distinction between a C&F agent and a market organizer engaged in marketing and promotional activities, ultimately determining the service tax liability in this specific context.