Commission-based order procurement not considered Clearing & Forwarding for service tax. Revenue appeal rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the decision that persons procuring orders on a commission basis are not considered Clearing and Forwarding agents for service tax purposes. The appeal by the revenue challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, based on a previous Tribunal ruling, was rejected. The Tribunal referred to a Larger Bench ruling that clarified the distinction between procuring orders and C&F activities, ultimately affirming that procuring orders does not fall under the category of 'clearing and forwarding service' for service tax classification.

---

---

Issues:
- Classification of services for service tax purposes

Analysis:
The case involved a revenue appeal against an Order-in-Appeal where service tax confirmed on the assessee had been set aside based on the argument that a C&F agent procuring orders and receiving commission does not fall under the category of 'clearing and forwarding service'. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a previous bench ruling in a similar case. The revenue, aggrieved by this decision, filed an appeal citing another Tribunal order. The Tribunal heard both sides, with the JDR referring to the appeal memo and the Counsel mentioning a Larger Bench ruling in a different case. The Larger Bench had overruled a previous decision and clarified that orders procured by a C&F agent should be treated separately from C&F activities. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and upheld the Larger Bench's ruling, stating that persons merely procuring orders on a commission basis are not considered C&F agents. Consequently, the appeal was rejected based on the precedent set by the Larger Bench judgment.

---