LARSON AND TOUBRO LTD. Vs. CCE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these appeals the question involved before the authorities below was whether the assessees were clearing and forwarding agents under their respective agreements, and liable to pay service tax for providing services connected with the forwarding and clearing operations.

(2.) WHEN Appeal No. Service Tax/81/05 came up for hearing before a Division Bench, the Division found it difficult to agree with the proposition laid down by the earlier Division Bench decision in Prabhat Zarda Factory v. CCE Patna referred the following question for decision by a Larger Bench: Whether mere procuring/booking orders for the principal by an agent on payment of commission basis would amount to providing services as 'clearing and forwarding agent' within the meaning of the definition of the expression 'clearing and forwarding agent' under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994, as held in the decision of the Tribunal in Prabhat Zarda Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE Patna, . Since in the other three appeals similar question regarding applicability of the ratio of Prabhat Zarda Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. had also arisen, the above question was also referred to the Larger Bench in all those appeals.

(3.) WE make it clear, before embarking upon the discussion on the controversy referred to the Larger Bench, that what we say should not be construed so as to be deciding any of the other issues involved in any of these appeals or deciding whether, on the facts of those appeals, the assessees were or were not providing services as "clearing and forwarding agent".