Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Suchitra Marketing (P) Ltd. & vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 17 February, 2009
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
BENCH-DB
Service Tax Appeal No.ST/325 & 350/06/CUST
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.150-151 (HKS) ST/JPR-II/2006 dated 28.02.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Jaipur-II].
Date of Hearing:17.02.2009
M/s. Suchitra Marketing (P) Ltd. &
M/s. Singer Textiles (India) Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-II Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Ms.Asmita Nayak, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri A.K.Madan, SDR Coram: Honble Mr.D.N.Panda, Judicial Member Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member ORDER NO. _______________ DATED:17.02.2009 PER: D.N.PANDA Ld. Counsel Ms.Asmita Nayak argues that the appellant was getting goods as a broker from the principal and keeping the same for sometime till buyer is found for selling the goods received from the principal. She submits that this is not a case of clearing & forwarding agency but a business auxiliary service. She relies on para 17 to 21 of the agreement between the parties. According to her, the appellant only furthers business of principal as an agent. Therefore the appellant should succeed when the law was not in force, even to bring business auxiliary services into tax net.
2. Ld. DR submits that the very nature of the agreement at page 65 clearly brings the relation between the principal and agent to discharge obligation of each other as narrated in para 2 of the agreement itself. He submits that para 2 clearly leads to construe the meaning of the agreement.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records. We have gone through the appellate order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who has brought out the nature of activities carried out by the appellant. Ld. Appellate Authority has made a finding that the goods are received from the principal by the appellant and those goods are also delivered to serve interest of principal itself. There are several orders passed by the Tribunal beginning from Larson & Tubro case to hold that above activity is clearing and forwarding service. We have also gone through the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Naresh Kumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Kolkata reported in 2008 (11) STR 578 where there was a detailed analysis of C&F Services done. Added to that, Tribunal had also occasion to examine the case of Karam Chand Thappar v/s. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata and noted the characteristics of agreement which is decisive to decide liability. A bare perusal of the relation of the principal and agent read with the CBEC Circular No.8/43/7/97-TRU dated 11.07.97 brings the very nature of activity of the present appellant to the scope of the law under the category of Clearing & Forwarding Agency. Having considered the legal aspect with the factual background of the case, we are of the belief that the appellant has no case to succeed. We dismiss both the appeals.
[Pronounced in the open Court during the course of hearing].
(D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAKESH KUMAR) TECHNICAL MEMBER Anita