9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the main activity of the respondent-assessee is not that of a "C and F agent". Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Hence, the substantial questions raised in this appeal have to be answered against the appellant-Revenue and consequently, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. - C.E.A. No. 61 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 28-5-2010 - PATIL N.K. AND NAGARATHNA B.V. , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by Mrs. B.V. NAGARATHNA J. This appeal is filed by the Revenue by challenging the order dated November 27, 2006 passed in Final Order No. 1979 of 2006 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Bangalore by raising the following substantial q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that the respondent was not carrying any activity of C and F agent in terms of the definition in the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, the Act ) and by relying upon the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in [2006] 3 STR 321, set aside the order passed in appeal and held that the respondent was not liable to pay any service tax as C and F agent . Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred this appeal by raising the aforesaid substantial questions of law. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue and the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent herein was pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o C and F operations. According to him, if at all, from the year 2003 onwards the nature of the activity of the assessee would be of that of business auxiliary service and that the Tribunal was therefore justified by relying upon the decision in Larsen Toubro's case [2006] 3 STR 321 by holding that the respondent was not liable to pay service tax since he was not carrying any activity of C and F agency . He also brought to our notice that the decision of the Tribunal in Larsen Tourbo's case [2006] 3 STR 321 has been affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and hence in view of the said decisions and taking into consideration the nature of the business activity of the assessee, the Tribunal was justified in granting relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailing the terms and conditions and also indicating the commission or remuneration to which the C and F agent is entitled. A clearing and forwarding agent normally undertakes the following: (a) Receiving the goods from the factories and premises of the principal or his agents; (b) Warehousing these goods; (c) Receiving despatch orders from the principal; (d) Arranging despatch of goods as per the directions of the principal by engaging transport on his own or through the authorised transporters of the principal; (e) Maintaining records of the receipt and despatch of goods and the stock available at the warehouse; (f) Preparing invoices on behalf of the principal. The relevant terms of the Commission agreement dated F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. [2006] 3 STR 321 wherein it has been held that the services of commission agent are included in the definition of business auxiliary service and mere procuring or having orders for the principal by an agent on payment of commission basis would not amount to providing services as C and F agent and that the expression directly or indirectly and in any manner occurring in the definition of C and F agent cannot be isolated from the activity of clearing and forwarding operations. Therefore, if the main activity of the assessee is in the nature of C and F agent and procuring orders would have been bought into the said definition. On the other hand, we find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
