2014 (1) TMI 1250 - AT - Service Tax

Selling Agency Agreements - Clearing and Forwarding Agent - Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings - Held that - Applicant had not undertaken the activity warehousing the goods or receiving the goods from the factory or premises of M/s. Raymond Ltd. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the adjudicating authority held that respondents are not undertaking any activity which falls under the name and scope of C&F service - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against adjudication order passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai
- Determination of whether the activities undertaken by the respondents fall under the service of Clearing and Forwarding Agent

Analysis:
- The Revenue filed an appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai, regarding an agreement between the respondents and M/s. Raymond Ltd. The respondents were appointed as selling agents by M/s. Raymond Ltd., responsible for managing dealers, arranging meetings, and recovering sums against goods dispatched. The Revenue contended that the respondents' activities, as per the agreement, constituted services of a Clearing and Forwarding Agent.

- The Revenue argued that the respondents' activities included keeping records of orders, sales, recovery of sums, market survey, order procurement, and passing orders to M/s. Raymond Ltd. The Revenue claimed that these activities aligned with those of a Clearing and Forwarding Agent, providing grounds for imposing service tax.

- However, the respondents cited a Trade Notice clarifying the typical activities of a Clearing and Forwarding Agent, which included receiving goods, warehousing, arranging dispatch, maintaining records, and preparing invoices. The Tribunal noted that the respondents did not engage in activities like warehousing or receiving goods from M/s. Raymond Ltd.'s premises. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision that the respondents' activities did not fall under the purview of C&F services, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

- In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the respondents' role as selling agents for M/s. Raymond Ltd., which involved managing dealers, arranging meetings, and facilitating order bookings, did not meet the criteria for a Clearing and Forwarding Agent as outlined in the Trade Notice. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the adjudication order, affirming that the respondents were not providing C&F services and were not liable for service tax in this case.