Tribunal rules cutting and bending charges not taxable under C&F Agency ServicesDemand of service tax - Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order for setting aside the demand of service tax on the cutting and bending charges being not included in the value of the taxable services rendered by the respondent - Held that: an identical issue in the case of Agra Steel Corporation Vs. CCE, Kanpur reported in [2008 - TMI - 31492 - CESTAT NEW] DELHI was decided in favour of the assessee - Hence, do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is reject... ... ... Issues:
Appeal against setting aside service tax demand on cutting and bending charges not included in taxable services value.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal setting aside the demand of service tax on cutting and bending charges not included in the value of taxable services provided by the respondent. The Tribunal noted that the respondent provided cutting and bending services during the warehousing period, which were not included in the gross value of the service charges under C&F Agency Services. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that charges for cutting, bending, and straightening of materials during warehousing are not related to the service provided by the consignment agent. Therefore, these charges should not be included in fixing liability for the consignment agent. The Tribunal found the previous judgment binding on the case at hand and rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that there were no merits in the appeal.

This judgment clarifies that charges for cutting and bending services during the warehousing period should not be included in the taxable service value under C&F Agency Services. The decision is based on the principle that such functions are not directly related to the services provided by the consignment agent. The Tribunal's reliance on a previous case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee strengthens the argument for excluding these charges from the taxable service value. The Tribunal's rejection of the Revenue's appeal indicates a consistent application of this interpretation across cases involving similar circumstances. Demand of service tax - Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order for setting aside the demand of service tax on the cutting and bending charges being not included in the value of the taxable services rendered by the respondent - Held that: an identical issue in the case of Agra Steel Corporation Vs. CCE, Kanpur reported in [2008 - TMI - 31492 - CESTAT NEW] DELHI was decided in favour of the assessee - Hence, do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. CCE, Chandigarh Versus M/s. Punjab Small Indus. & Export Corpn. Ltd.
Service Tax
2011 (5) TMI 72 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - TMI
CESTAT, NEW DELHI - AT
Dated:- 19-5-2011
718 of 2007 - -
Service Tax
Shri M.V. Ravindran, Shri M.Veeraiyan, JJ. Appearance: Rep. by Shri K.K. Jaiswal, SDR for the appellants. Rep. by Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the respondent. Per M.V. Ravindran: This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.439/CE/CHD/07 dated 08.10.2007 and is filed by the Revenue against the impugned order for setting aside the demand of service tax on the cutting and bending charges being not included in the value of the taxable services rendered by the respondent. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. There is no dispute as to the fact that the respondents are providing cutting and bending of the materials received by them during the warehousing period and it is also not disputed that the said amount has not been included in the gross value of the service charges rendered by the respondent under the head C&F Agency Services . 4. Ld. Counsel would submit that an identical issue in the case of Agra Steel Corporation Vs. CCE, Kanpur reported in 2009 (15) STR 202 (Tribunal-Delhi) was decided in favour of the assessee. 5. On perusal of the judgement of the Tribunal cited above, we find that the Coordinate Bench has held in para-7 as under:- 7. In respect of cutting, bending and straightening of the material during warehousing period, we find that these functions are not related to the service provided by the consignment agent. Therefore, charges in respect of cutting, bending and straightening of the material are not to be included for the purpose of fixing liability for consignment agent. The impugned order is modified to this extent only, otherwise the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above. 6. It is very clear that the said judgement will be binding on the facts of the case before us. 7. In view of this, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders