TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Service Tax Judgment on C&F Agent's Services Upheld, Penalties Imposed</h1> The judgment confirmed a service tax amount of Rs. 26,20,292 against the appellant, a clearing and forwarding agent, for services provided to M/s. IPCL. ... Goods are received from principal, for further sending the same to various customers – admittedly, cheques are made in the name of principal so appellant cannot be held to be distributors of principal - services provided by the applicants/appellants have to be considered as C&F Agent’s services - As such the demand is barred by limitation except to the extent of around Rs. 4.90 lakhs which would be within the period of limitation - appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs – stay granted partly Issues:1. Confirmation of service tax against the appellant as a clearing and forwarding agent.2. Imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Reversal of original demand decision by the Commissioner.4. Consideration of services provided by the appellant as C&F Agent's services.5. Limitation period for the demand raised.Analysis:1. The judgment confirmed an amount of Rs. 26,20,292/- as service tax against the appellant for services provided as a clearing and forwarding agent of M/s. IPCL. Additionally, penalties were imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 75A of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's original demand was initially dropped but later reversed and confirmed by the Commissioner.2. The penalties imposed were in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's stand that they were distributors of M/s IPCL was refuted based on the consideration for the sale of goods being received by IPCL, and the services provided by the appellant were considered as C&F Agent's services.3. The appellant raised the issue of limitation, arguing that the demand for the period September 1999 to October 2003, raised in a show cause notice dated 5-10-2004, was barred by limitation due to the confusion surrounding the initial levy of service tax during that period. The authorities had not addressed the limitation issue earlier.4. Considering the limitation plea, the tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within eight weeks, with compliance to be reported. Upon compliance, the pre-deposit of the balance amount of service tax and penalties would be dispensed with, indicating a partial relief for the appellant.5. The matter was scheduled for compliance review on 31-1-2008, with the appeal to be taken up for final decision pending compliance verification. The judgment provided a structured approach to addressing the issues raised by the appellant, balancing the confirmation of service tax with considerations of limitation and compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
