Judgment rules service tax for C&F services only when goods are received and forwarded as per principal's instructions.

The judgment set aside the tax demand on Abirami for C&F services provided to TAC & TPL, ruling that the service tax liability only arises when goods are received and forwarded based on principal's instructions. The Circular of the CBEC and a Tribunal decision supported this interpretation, clarifying that direct transport to buyers does not attract service tax. The case was remanded for redetermination of tax liability with specific directions, ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with legal principles.

---

---

Issues:
Demand of service tax under the head C&F Service for services rendered by Abirami to TAC & TPL, applicability of tax as C&F Agent, interpretation of Circular of the CBEC, consideration of cum-duty value for re-quantifying the demand.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of service tax under the head C&F Service for services provided by Abirami to TAC & TPL. The impugned order affirmed the tax demand of Rs. 1,48,002 along with a penalty of Rs. 2,500 under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that tax under the head 'C&F Agents' was attracted only when goods were forwarded after receiving them based on the principal's instructions. It was contended that Abirami was not liable to pay tax as a C&F Agent in cases where the principal directly sent the goods to buyers. Additionally, there was a grievance regarding the re-quantification of demand based on cum-duty value, which was not considered by the lower appellate authority.

Upon careful consideration, it was found that the transport of materials directly to buyers by TAC and TPL against orders procured by Abirami did not attract service tax under the head 'C&F Agents'. Tax liability arose only when goods were received by the appellants and forwarded to buyers as per the principal's instructions. The Circular of the CBEC clarified the activities undertaken by a clearing and forwarding agent, supporting the appellant's argument. Furthermore, the Explanation introduced to explain the taxable value was deemed a clarification of a principle always valid and applied, not retrospective. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case supported this interpretation.

The judgment set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal by way of remand with specific directions. The original authority was tasked with redetermining Abirami's liability to service tax in cases where the transport for appellants' clients attracted levy under the "C&F Agent" service. The appellants were to be given an effective hearing before a fresh decision was made, ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with legal principles.

---