Tribunal upholds decision on commission-based service tax dispute.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It was determined that the respondent, engaged in procuring/booking orders on a commission basis, did not provide 'clearing and forwarding agent service' under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal referenced a precedent stating that individuals solely involved in order procurement on commission basis do not fall under this service category. Therefore, the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the demand for service tax was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of 'clearing and forwarding agent service' under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act.

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal, where the issue at hand was whether the respondent, engaged in procuring/booking orders for another entity on a commission basis, could be considered as providing 'clearing and forwarding agent service' under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act. The respondent, a manufacturing unit, was appointed as distribution controllers by a sister unit for a specific product. The Revenue contended that the respondent was providing such a service and issued a Show Cause Notice demanding service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, after examining the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, observed that the respondent was solely involved in procuring/booking orders for the sister unit on a commission basis. The Tribunal referenced a decision by the Larger Bench in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. CCE, which clarified that individuals engaged in mere procurement of orders on a commission basis do not fall under the definition of a clearing and forwarding agent service as per Section 65(25) of the Finance Act. Relying on this precedent, the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly set aside the original order. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the Order-in-Appeal and upheld the decision, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

---

---