Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. After hearing both the sides at length and on perusal of the records, we find that the services of the appellant-assessee include fixing the value of tea, completion of negotiation of the prices between the buyer and the exporter and finalization of the contract between them. We also find that the appellant assists in the system of grading and standardization of the tea for the purpose of export and also deals with details such as colour, taste, quality and quantity for export of tea. They also render their services in fixing the price for tea and after completion of negotiation they actively participate in the finalization of the contract. Subsequently, they keep monitoring the shipment of the goods. They also verify shipment documents, port regulations and other formalities for export of goods. In some cases they engage themselves to collect the sale proceeds, if any, pending due from the buyers end. Appellants contention is that they have entered into MOU with the exporters of tea and the exporters paid service charges for the services rendered by the appellant-assessee for having carried out sales effectively as given below:-

From the above definition, it is abundantly clear that the commission agent is a person who causes sale or purchase of goods on behalf of the principal company for a consideration which is normally governed by an agreement between the principal and the agent. Whereas, in this present case, we find that, as already explained in the above paragraphs, appellants activities are not only restricted to sale, but includes host of other activities including assisting in the system of grading and standardization of tea for the purpose of export and also deals with details such as colour, taste, quality and quantity for export of tea and are professional tea taster. They also monitor the shipment of the goods and verify shipment documents, port regulations and other formalities for export of tea. Therefore, we find that the above activities do not fall within the meaning of commission agent. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants activities are rightly covered under the category of BAS other than commission agent. Therefore, the question of appellant claiming tea as agricultural produce, which is applicable for only commission agent and not applicable to the appellant assessees case. Accordingly, we hold that the demand along with interest is liable to be upheld.