RKBK LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant are a dealer operated godown operator for M/s. IOC Ltd. (IOCL) for which they have agreement between them and IOC. In terms of their agreement with IOC, they have to make provisions for storage of lubricants along with an office with furniture, telephone, water, electricity, toilet and other amenities as per requirement, providing safe custody of the products and materials kept in the godown, provision for all types of secretarial assistance including receiving of payments from the customers and depositing the same in IOC's Bank Account and liaisioning with the bank, operation and supervision of the godown, maintaining adequate manpower of the staff of requisite competence and skill for fulfilling all the required jobs to be carried out under the work order, etc. For all these operations, the appellant, as per their agreement with IOCL received an amount of Rs. 760/ - per KL (for lubes)/MT(for greases) of sales /dispatch ex -godown. According to the Department, the services being provided by the appellant to the IOCL were clearing & forwarding agent's services, as defined under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994 and taxable under Section 65(105)(i) ibid, but the appellant had neither obtained service tax registration nor were paying any service tax. A show cause notice dated 25.3.2004 was, therefore, issued to the appellant for -

(2.) HEARD both the sides.

(3.) SHRI K.K. Jaiswal, Id. Departmental Representative pleaded that as is clear from the note sheet of the Commissionerate file from which the review order had been issued, the Commissioner had signed the review order on 8.12.2006 and it is only the fair copies of the order, which were issued on 29.12.2006, that in view of this, the review of the Assistant Commissioner's order has been done in time, that on merits, the issue involved in this case stands decided against the appellant by the judgment of the Tribunal in the cases of CCE v. Team S & S : [2011] 30 STT 300 : 9 taxmann.com 46 (New Delhi - CESTAT) and Naresh Kumar & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CST : [2008] 15 STT 161 (Kol. - CESTAT) wherein it was held that in case of C& F Agent services, the tax is chargeable on the gross amount charged and no deduction on account of godown rent, house keeping, courier expenses, electricity, staff remuneration, loading and unloading charges, etc. is admissible and that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.