Appellant granted waiver of service tax, not deemed C&F Agent. Demand possibly time-barred.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to dispense with the pre-deposit of service tax, ruling that the appellant was not operating as a C&F Agent for M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. as defined under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found that the appellant's operations were independent, selling goods to third parties without intervention from M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., leading to a full waiver of service tax and penalty. Additionally, the Tribunal deemed the demand prima facie barred by limitation due to lack of concrete evidence of suppression, setting the appeal for final hearing to address remaining issues.

---

---

Issues:
Prayer to dispense with pre-deposit of service tax confirmed against the appellant for providing services as a C&F Agent to M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and the invocation of the longer period of limitation for raising the demand.

Analysis:

1. Prayer to Dispense with Pre-deposit of Service Tax:
The appellant sought dispensation of the condition of pre-deposit of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,43,698/-, contending that they were not operating as a C&F Agent for M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. The Tribunal examined the agreement between the parties dated 1-7-2001, which revealed that the appellant was supplying spare parts to M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., and the goods were subsequently sold by the appellant independently in the State of Rajasthan without any intervention from M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. The definition of a C&F Agent under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994, was considered, which includes persons engaged in clearing or forwarding services. The Tribunal referred to a Circular of the Board dated 11-7-1997, indicating that a C&F agent receives dispatch orders from their principal. However, in this case, the appellant was selling goods to independent parties, issuing invoices in their own name, and paying sales tax directly. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant could not be considered a C&F Agent, thereby granting a full waiver of service tax and penalty.

2. Invocation of Longer Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal also addressed the issue of the demand being raised by invoking the longer period of limitation. It noted that the charge of suppression was based on a general allegation without any concrete evidence of positive acts of suppression. As a result, the Tribunal found that the demand was prima facie barred by limitation. Therefore, in addition to granting the waiver of service tax and penalty, the Tribunal fixed the appeal for final hearing on a specific date to address the remaining issues comprehensively.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment provided detailed reasoning for granting the appellant's request to dispense with the pre-deposit of service tax, emphasizing the independent nature of the appellant's operations and the lack of evidence supporting the charge of suppression. The decision also highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory limitations while raising demands, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the legal dispute.

---