2008 (12) TMI 99 - AT - Service Tax

C&F Service - submission that appellant was not liable to pay tax as C&F Agent on commission received when principal sent the consignments directly to their buyers held that transport of materials directly to its buyers by principal against orders procured by assessee do not attract service tax under the head C&F Agents but tax is attracted when goods were received by assessee and forwarded to buyers on instruction of principal matter remanded to redetermine the liability of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Demand of service tax under the head C&F Service for services rendered by Abirami to TAC & TPL, applicability of tax as C&F Agent, interpretation of Circular of the CBEC, consideration of cum-duty value for re-quantifying the demand.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of service tax under the head C&F Service for services provided by Abirami to TAC & TPL. The impugned order affirmed the tax demand of Rs. 1,48,002 along with a penalty of Rs. 2,500 under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that tax under the head 'C&F Agents' was attracted only when goods were forwarded after receiving them based on the principal's instructions. It was contended that Abirami was not liable to pay tax as a C&F Agent in cases where the principal directly sent the goods to buyers. Additionally, there was a grievance regarding the re-quantification of demand based on cum-duty value, which was not considered by the lower appellate authority.

Upon careful consideration, it was found that the transport of materials directly to buyers by TAC and TPL against orders procured by Abirami did not attract service tax under the head 'C&F Agents'. Tax liability arose only when goods were received by the appellants and forwarded to buyers as per the principal's instructions. The Circular of the CBEC clarified the activities undertaken by a clearing and forwarding agent, supporting the appellant's argument. Furthermore, the Explanation introduced to explain the taxable value was deemed a clarification of a principle always valid and applied, not retrospective. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case supported this interpretation.

The judgment set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal by way of remand with specific directions. The original authority was tasked with redetermining Abirami's liability to service tax in cases where the transport for appellants' clients attracted levy under the "C&F Agent" service. The appellants were to be given an effective hearing before a fresh decision was made, ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with legal principles.