9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of C & F agent to M/s. GSFC Ltd. and M/s. Bayer ABC Ltd. 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri. N. Pathak learned A.R. for revenue and Ms. Swati Gupta, Ld. CA and, after going through the impugned order, we find that Commissioner has gone through the agreements entered into by the respondent and their principals and has held as follows : "However, the key issue which stands disputed is regarding 'dispatching of the goods as per the order of the principals or owners of the goods'. As per the definition of the 'C & F' agent supra it is clarified that apart from the referred services basic intent of the agreement between the principal and the agent, for the latter to be 'C & F' agent should be that 'C & F' agent would r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was required to sell and not dispatch the gods as per the directions of the principal. Moreover, there is no evidence explicitly or implicitly provided in the agreement that the goods were to be dispatched to the customers in accordance with the directions of the principals or the owners of the goods. The arrangement merely state that the goods were to be sold within stipulated period and not in the form of distribution or dispatching the goods as directed by the principals. Further, it is also observed that there is no allegation to this extent in the impugned SCN. 3. While arriving at this conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeal) has also referred to-and relied upon the Board's Circular No. 59/8/2003-S.T., dated 26-6-2003. Accordingly he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of goods of the principals/owners of the goods such consideration is not towards provision of taxable services under 'C & F' agent. Hence, the demand of impugned Service Tax as stated in the SCN under Section 73 of the Act ibid and interest thereon under Section 75 of the Act ibid is not sustainable. The proposed penalties on the party under Sections 75A, 76, 77 & 78 of the Act ibid are also not sustainable as the alleged demand does not exist for the aforementioned reasons." 4. The issue required to be decided in the present appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the respondent can be held to be clearing and forwarding agent of their principal. We find that scope of the said services was clarified by the Board as contained in Trade N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the respondents were free to sell the goods to their own customers and were not merely dispatching the goods on the orders of their principal. Further, the invoice was being issued by the respondent themselves. As such we agree with the conclusion adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent can not be held to be C & F agent. Further we note that apart from various decisions relied upon by the Commissioner the present issue was also the subject-matter of the decisions of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Panchkula v. Kulcip Medicines (P) Ltd. reported as 2009 (14) S.T.R. 608 (P & H), vide which the Larger Bench decision taken in the case of Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai - 2006 (3) S.T.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
