Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Assessee's Services Taxable as Clearing & Forwarding Agent, Tribunal Decision Overturned</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-I Versus MAHAVEER GENERICS</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-I Versus MAHAVEER GENERICS - 2010 (17) S.T.R. 225 (Kar.) , [2010] 24 STT 545 (KAR.) , [2010] 31 VST 439 (Kar) Issues Involved:1. Classification of services rendered by the assessee: Whether the assessee's services fall under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agent (C & F Agent) or Commission Agent.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Services Rendered by the Assessee:Background and Facts:The assessee was registered as a Clearing and Forwarding Agent under the service tax. They sought to surrender their registration, claiming their activities did not fall under this category. The jurisdictional authority, however, concluded that the assessee's activities were taxable under the C & F Agent category. This decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The assessee appealed to the CESTAT, which ruled in their favor, stating their activities did not fall within the purview of a C & F Agent. The revenue then appealed to the High Court.Revenue's Contentions:The revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in interpreting the definition of 'C & F Agent' using dictionary meanings instead of the statutory language. They contended that the Tribunal should have adhered to the statutory definition provided in Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, which includes consignment agents within the definition of C & F Agents. The revenue supported their argument with precedents, emphasizing that the statutory language should prevail over dictionary meanings.Assessee's Contentions:The assessee argued that their activities were akin to those of a Commission Agent, as defined under Section 2(19)(a) of the Finance Act. They relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Larsen and Toubro v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, which was affirmed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. They also pointed to a similar case involving Cipla Ltd. in Punjab, where the High Court ruled that the activities were those of a Commission Agent.Agreement Analysis:The High Court examined the agreement between the assessee and Cipla Ltd. The agreement appointed the assessee as a 'Consignment Agent' and detailed their responsibilities, including storing goods, selling them at prices fixed by the principal, and appointing stockists/dealers. The agreement also specified that the assessee would receive a commission for their efforts.Statutory Definitions:The court referred to the definitions provided in the Finance Act:- Clearing & Forwarding Agent: A person engaged in providing services related to clearing and forwarding operations, including consignment agents.- Commission Agent: A person acting on behalf of another, causing the sale or purchase of goods or services for consideration.Court's Findings:The court found that the assessee's activities extended beyond those of a mere Commission Agent. The agreement indicated that the assessee was involved in clearing and forwarding operations, including storing goods and appointing stockists. The court noted that the statutory definition of a C & F Agent included consignment agents, and the assessee's activities fell within this definition.Judgment:The court held that the assessee's services fell within the category of 'clearing and forwarding agent' and were therefore taxable. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the original authority's order was confirmed.Order:The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the appellant-revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the original authority's order was confirmed. No costs were awarded.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found