COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE Vs. SHAH POLYMERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal [2007 (7) S.T.R. 646 (Tri. - Bang.)] , which has held that the assessee, a Del Credere Agent its activity do not fall under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agent and therefore, the assessee is not liable to pay service tax. The assessee -M/s. Shah Polymers is engaged in the business of clearing and forwarding agents and registered with the Department as 'Business Auxiliary Service'. During the investigation, it was revealed that the assessee are engaged in the business of rendering taxable services falling under the category of Clearing and Forwarding Agents and were evading payment of service tax on the amounts received by them towards the said services from RIL and IPCL. Therefore, a show cause notice came to be issued on 19 -4 -2005 calling upon them to show cause as to why the service tax should not be levied with interest and penalty. They gave a reply contending that in view of the judgment of the CESTAT, South Zonal, Bangalore in the case of M/s. Raja Rajeshwari Polymer (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, the activities carried on by them do not come under the purview of Clearing and Forwarding Agent and therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax. Overruling the said objection, the Joint Commissioner of the Service Tax, Bangalore confirmed the service tax and also levied interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise who allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal following the judgment in M/s. Raja Rajeshwari International Polymer (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore's case. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue is in appeal.

(2.) FROM the aforesaid facts it is clear, the question that arise for our consideration in this appeal is:

(3.) IN that view of the matter, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court. The High Court registry is directed to return the certified copies of the orders produced, to the Department, to prefer the appeal.