Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2011 (11) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on them. 2. It is the appellants' case that they are not C&F agent for M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. inasmuch as they do not satisfy the definition of C&F agent as appearing in Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994. It stands argued before us that none of the ingredients of C&F agent exists in their case inasmuch as they are neither clearing the goods from the factory nor forwarding the same to the buyers, under the instructions of their principal. They are acting as independent agents for selling the goods of their principal and the relationship between them and their principal is business relation. They are selling the goods on their own and are neither receiving despatch orders from their principal nor they offer despatch or arrange despatch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ities detailed in the Board's Circular F. No. 43/7/97. TRU dated 11.7.97, relied upon by the appellant, they cannot be held to be excluded from the ambit of C& F agent. He has observed that it is not essential for a person to perform all the activities specified in the said circular of the Board and if any one or two of such activities are not performed, he will be considered as C&F agent. 3. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The definition of clearing and forwarding agent, has been the subject matter of the dispute for quite a long time. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE [2006] 4 STT 231 (New Delhi - CESTAT) has considered the definition of C&F agent and has held as unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pal M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. Condition No. 2 of the agreement is to the effect that agent shall make its own arrangement for suitable adequate premises with the requisite facilities for the supply and sale of the spare parts supplied by the principal. Clause 4 is to the effect that the agent shall place requisition from time to time for the various spare parts and principal shall supply the same at its own cost of Transportation and delivery of Agent. Clause 6 is to the effect that the principal shall deliver the goods to the Agent's premises at its own cost and risk. After the delivery, the Agent shall be solely responsible for any damage or loss caused to the said goods or shortages that may arise after such delivery. The agent is to be paid ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom under cover of sales invoice issued by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. as per the requisition made by the appellants. The same are being sold by the appellants to individual customers under the cover of their own sales invoices. All these facts clearly demonstrate that the appellants are acting as independent businessman and are selling the products of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. to their own clients without the interference of their principal. 6. The activities of C& F agent to the contrary are altogether different activities as is clear from the Board's circular clarifying the scope of C & F agent that a clearing and forwarding agent receives the goods from the factory of the principal, warehouse the same, receives the despatch orders from the princ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the period April, 2001 to March, 2002, having been raised by a show cause notice dated 28.2.2005 is clearly barred by limitation, having been raised beyond the normal period of limitation. The lower authorities have not referred to any evidence of suppression or mis-statement, with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation. Inasmuch as the issue involved is interpretation of provisions of law, the appellants cannot be settled with any allegation of mala fide so as to justifiably invoke longer period or so as to impose penalty upon them. We further note that demand stands raised against the appellants by picking the figures of commission from their balance shee....