Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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