9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se - Since the SCN in the present case has been issued on 13.6.2001 covering the demand for the period 16.7.1997 to 31.3.1998, the demand is time barred - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/72/2004-DB - -Final Order No. 20240 / 2017 - Dated:- 13-2-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan , Technical Member Mr. Parashiva Murthy, AR For the appellant None For the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The appeal filed by Revenue challenges the Order-in-Appeal dated 14.7.2004. The respondent is a manufacturer of various types of audio products. They entered into an agreement with M/s. BPL Ltd. for marketing their goods on Consignment Agency basis. The consignment agent, M/s. BPL, appoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d below: 8. The agreement, with specific reference to the clauses quoted above, would show that the appellant was not acting as a clearing and forwarding agent. Unless its service can be treated as one to a client by a clearing and forwarding agent in relation to clearing and forwarding operations in any manner, the service cannot be taxed even if the consignment agent is brought under the definition of clearing and forwarding agent. Under the scheme of the Finance Act, 1994 with relation to service tax, the tax liability is attached to the taxable service. So long as the appellant is not providing a taxable service, the appellant cannot be brought under the net of service tax. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already been paid by the respondent. The original authority confirmed the demand. However, the impugned order set aside the demand almost entirely on the basis of the Tribunal s decision in the case of Mahavir Generics (supra) which stands overruled by the Hon ble High Court in subsequent proceedings. The levy of service tax on C F Agency service was initially imposed on the service provider in 1997. However, the said levy was transferred to users on reverse charge basis by a Notification. The Notification was quashed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the Lagu Udyog Bharathi vs. UOI holding that the levy of tax from the receiver was illegal. However, the Finance Act, 2000 revalidated the effect of this Notification w.e.f 12.5.2000 by ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
