TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 834
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conversion of raw materials into finished goods on job-work basis as per the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. For Conversion of raw material to finished goods, the Applicants are paid conversion charges as per agreement which also includes various other activities including that of a consignment agent. The Ld. Sr. Advocate further submits that the Applicant had also entered into an agreement with M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. on 30.03.1998 in addition to the agreement of conversion agreement to act as a consignment agent for M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. As per the said agreement, the Applicants are entitled to receive service charges to the tune of Rs.250/275 per M.T. for places in India other than Mumbai and Mumbai, respectively. Around eight show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e charges must have been received by an assessee from the service receiver. In the present case, since the Applicant had not received any amount against consignment agency agreement dated 30.03.1998 i.e. Rs.250/275 per M.T. as the case may be, therefore, there cannot be any liability of Service Tax fastened on the Applicant alleging rendering of Consignment Agency services, under the category of clearing and forwarding Agency services. The Ld. Sr. Advocate submits that they have discharged Central Excise duty on the conversion charges and there is no dispute on that. 3. Per contra, Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has vehemently argued taking cue from the consignment agency contract dated 30.03.1998 that the Applicant had by the said agreement agr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said agreement with M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. they have not received any consignment agency charges from M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. beyond the conversion charges received from M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. In this context the Ld. Sr. Advocate brought to our notice the statements given by the officers of the Applicant. Prima facie, we find that the case has been built against the Applicant as is clear from the impugned notices that the Applicant had received Rs.250/275 per M.T. as consignment agency charges from M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., but failed to discharge Service Tax as required, under the relevant provisions of Finance Act, 1994. Prima facie, we are not impressed by the argument by the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue that the said charges of Rs.250/275 per M.T., ....