Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Purushottam Industries Ltd. on 5 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006[ ]S.T.R.82
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order held that the Respondents had not done any of the activities covered by C & F Agent. The Commissioner (Appeals) held as under :-
It is observed that the services rendered by the appellants i.e. procuring orders and passing on the same to the principal for execution is not directly or indirectly connected with clearing and forwarding operation. There is no proof that they had handled in any manner the goods for which they had received remunerations. They had not done any of the activities covered by "C&F Agency Service", as such the services rendered by them to the principals cannot be termed as Clearing & Forwarding Agency service, accordingly the same cannot be said taxable service at the relevant service. I, therefore, find that the services rendered by the appellants were not covered by the definition of "C&F Agency Service", therefore, the same were not taxable at the relevant time. Accordingly, I hold that demand of service tax of Rs. 12,22,987/- under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 is not sustainable in law. Since, the services rendered were not taxable as discussed here-inabove, allegation regarding failure in following procedure is not established. Therefore, penalty Under Section 76 & 77 of Finance Act, 1994 is also not sustainable.
The contention of the Revenue is that the Respondents are working as Clearing and Forwarding Agent, therefore, they are liable to pay service tax. We find that as per definition of Clearing & Forwarding Agent under Finance Act, the clearing and forwarding agent means any person who is engaged in providing any service either directly or indirectly connected with the clearing or forwarding operation.
2. In the present case the Respondents are only procuring order and passing to the principal for execution. There is no evidence on record to show that the Respondents directly or indirectly connected with the clearing and forwarding operation. In these circumstances we find no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the same is rejected.
(Dedicated & pronounced in the open Court)