9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled against Order-in-Appeal No. 20/2006 ST dated 15.02.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Cochin. 2. The appellants are registered as C F Agents and paid service tax for the period from September 1999 to June 2004. Later on, they came to know about the CESTAT orders dated 27.04.2004, in the case of M /s. Mahavir Generics Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 78 (Tri.-Del.) by which it was held that the services of consignment agents cannot be charged to Service Tax as C F Agent. The appellants were functioning as commission agents for some of the manufacturers of steel pipes. They get the steel pipes and tubes on consignment basis, stock them in their premises and sell the products to their customers. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agents. The agreement clearly defines the role as selling agents and not as C F or consignment agent. The appellant gets commission based on the sales effected by them. The goods remain the property of the appellant and the principal has no control over the goods. The appellant alone discharges sales tax burden. The appellant is not concerned with receipt of the goods from the manufacturer and also does not take any instructions from the principal. They are independent selling agents. Unlike in the case of C F Agents, where the goods vest with the principal only, who issues invoices, pay sales tax etc., the appellants are independently handling the goods, issuing invoices etc., and do not take any instructions from the supplier. In terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided by a "C F Agent." In that case the Larger Bench has never discussed about the Mahavir Generics case nor have they given any finding to the fact that the same is overruled. It is therefore clear that Mahavir Generics case has not been set aside or overruled or distinguished by the Larger Bench. 8. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the following decisions. a) Super Poly Fabrics Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ludhiana- 2006 (4) STR 595 (Tri.-Del.) b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Adhunik Steels Ltd . 2006 (4) STR 542 (Tri.-Del.) 9. The learned Advocate distinguished the facts of the above cases from those of the present appeal. In the above cases it was submitted that the assesses wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd. - 2006 (3) S.T.R 632 f) Anand Tisuses Ltd. - 2006 (3) S.T.R 648 g) CCE v. A.K. Multi Metals Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (3) S.T.R 735 h ) L T Ltd. - 2006 (4) S.T.R 466 i) K.K. Corporation - 2007 (5) S.T.R 89 j) Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. - 2007 (5) S.T.R 218 k) Gemini Associates - 2007 (5) S.T.R 304 11. On going through the agreement, I find the same is entitled "consignment agreement". In terms of the agreement the appellant is appointed as selling agent w.e.f. 28.08.2002 to sell on consignment basis galvanized steel tubes/MS Steel Tubes and Pipes. The Principal has agreed to pay commission to the appellant as may be mutually agreed from time to time. From the agreement one can not conclude that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
