Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2691

Whether marketing of goods by obtaining orders covered under ‘C & F Services’ ?

 
Case:- MALHOTRA DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. VsC.C.E., MUMBAI-I

Citation:- 2014 (36) S.T.R. 93 (Tri. - Mumbai)
 
Brief Facts:- The appellant M/s. Malhotra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (MDPL) entered into an agreement with M/s. Vidyut Metallics Ltd. (VML) for rendering assistance in the marketing of goods produced by the latter by obtaining orders and also ensuring that the goods are sold at the terms and discounts as specified by VML. For the services rendered, they were getting a commission from M/s. VML. The department was of the view that the services rendered by the appellant is classifiable under the category of ‘Clearing and Forwarding Services’ and accordingly, a Service Tax demand of Rs. 61,16,009/- was confirmed for the period October, 1998 to September, 2000 along with interest thereon. Penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also imposed on the appellant. The appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority, who vide the impugned order dismissed their appeal .

Appellant’s contention:- The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the agreement entered into with M/s. VML, they were procuring the orders for the goods from the stockists and were forwarding the same to the manufacturer for which they get a commission @ 3.7% of the net sale value from M/s. VML. They rendered only services relating to marketing of the goods and did not deal with the goods in any manner and as per the circular issued by the C.B.E. & C. vide Circular No. 87/97/10/Service Tax/97 issued in July, 97, the scope of clearing and forwarding service has been clarified as follows :-
“ Normally, there is a contract between the principal and the clearing and forwarding agent detailing the terms and conditions and also indicating the commission or remuneration to which the C&F agent is entitled. A clearing and Forwarding agent normally undertakes the following :-
(a)        Receiving the goods from the factories or premises of the principal or his agents;
(b)        Warehousing these goods;
(c)        Receiving despatch orders from the principal;
(d)        Arranging despatch of goods as per the directions of the principal by engaging transport on his own or through the authorised transporters of the principal;
(e)        Maintaining records of the receipt and despatch of goods and the stock available at the warehouse;
(f)         Preparing invoices on behalf of the principal.”
They have undertaken none of the above activities and, therefore, the services rendered by them do not come under the category of ‘Clearing and Forwarding Services’.

Respondent’s contention:- The learned Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
 
 
Reasoning of judgment:-After carefully considering the rival contentions it was held that as per Section 65(105)(j) Clearing & Forwarding Agency Services has been defined as under :-
“Any services provided or to be provided to any person by a clearing and forwarding agent in relation to clearing and forwarding operations in any manner.”
As per Section 65(25) ‘Clearing & Forwarding Agent’ means any person who is engaged in providing any services directly or indirectly, connected with Clearing & Forwarding in any manner to any person and includes a consignment agent. The C.B.E. & C. vide Circular dated July, 1997 (cited supra) had clarified the scope of the services undertaken by the clearing & forwarding agent. The clarification provided clearly says that such agent should receive the goods, warehouse the goods and arrange for the dispatch of the goods as per directions of principal and also maintain a record of receipt and dispatch and also at time prepare invoices on behalf of the principal. In the present case,  the agreement is entered into between the appellant and M/s. VML. The agreement says that the appellant has to procure the orders from the stockists and forward the same to M/s. VML. Further, the appellant has to ensure that the goods are sold at the terms and discounts specified in writing by VML from time to time. For the services so rendered, M/s. VML shall be charged @ 3.7% on the net sale value. Thus, from the terms and conditions entered into by the appellant, it is clear that the appellant was acting as a commission agent by procuring the orders for the sale of the goods. The appellant did not deal with the goods at all as is expected in the case of Clearing & Forwarding Agent. The Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. L&T Ltd. (supra) held that an agent engaged only for procuring purchase orders for the vendor on commission basis, is not engaged in the clearing and forwarding activity either directly or indirectly and, therefore, mere procuring or booking orders for the principal by an agent on commission basis would not amount to providing services as clearing and forwarding agent within the meaning of the definition of that expression under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of United Plastomers (supra), has also held that mere procuring of orders on commission basis does not amount to ‘Clearing & Forwarding Agent Service’. The same view was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of OKS Specialities Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. -2009 (16)S.T.R.403 (Kar). Subsequently, this Tribunal itself in a number of cases like, Shivangi Steel Pvt. Ltd. and Energy Equipment Distributoretc. followed the decision of the Larger Bench and the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Karnataka. Following these decisions and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is held that the services rendered by the appellant does not fall within the taxable service category of Clearing & Forwarding Agent Services.

Decision:- The appeal was allowed.

Comment:- The analogy of the case is that the services are to be covered under Clearing and Forwarding services only whencertain conditions are fulfilled. Procuring of orders for the goods from the stockists and forwarding the same to the manufacturer for which a commission is charged of the net sale value cannot be considered as ‘Clearing and Forwading Services’ since there is no handling or warehousing of goods by the agent. For an activity to be classifiable as “C & F Services”, it is necessary that the activities as mentioned in the C.B.E. & C. vide Circular No. 87/97/10/Service Tax/97 are being carried out.

Submitted by:- Somya Jain

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com