2008 (5) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oposing demand of tax on the Appellant  as "Clearing and Forwarding Agent" under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1944. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of tax of Rs. 1,16,741/- and imposed  consolidated penalty of equal amount on Appellants under Section 76 and 78 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order. The relevant portion of the order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ral Excise, Kanpur before this Tribunal. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Appellants are covered under the definition of "Commission Agent" and the demand of tax is not sustainable. It is seen that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not challenged by the Revenue before the Appellate Authority. As the demand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X