Supreme Court rules coal handling services don't qualify as 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' under Service Tax law.

Case Name:

Coal Handlers (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Civil Appeal No. 7215 of 2004

Key Takeaways:

- The court clarified the scope of the term 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994.

- It held that merely procuring or booking orders for the principal on a commission basis does not amount to providing 'Clearing and Forwarding' services.

- The court overruled the earlier Tribunal decision in Prabhat Zarda Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE Patna to the extent it had given a wider interpretation to the term.

Issue:

Whether the services rendered by the appellants (Coal Handlers (P) Ltd. and Chhattisgarh Coal Handling Company) would qualify them as 'Clearing and Forwarding Agents' under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994, and thus make them liable to pay service tax?

Facts:

- The appellants provided certain services as agents to cement companies (Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited and Ambuja Cements Eastern Limited) for procuring coal, a raw material for cement production.

- The appellants supervised and liaised with the coal companies and railways to ensure the coal was loaded and transported as per schedule to the cement companies' factories.

- The appellants did not take custody of the coal or arrange for its transportation as forwarders.

- The destination of the coal was predetermined by the contract between the coal companies and the cement companies.

Arguments:

- Revenue's argument:

The appellants' services fell within the definition of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994, and hence were liable to pay service tax.

- Appellants' argument:

Their services did not involve clearing and forwarding operations as defined in the law, and thus they should not be considered 'Clearing and Forwarding Agents' liable for service tax.

Key Legal Precedents:

- Prabhat Zarda Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE Patna (2002) -

The Tribunal had given a wider interpretation to the term 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent.' This decision was overruled by the Supreme Court in the present case to the extent of the ratio laid down therein.

- Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai (Full Bench of Tribunal) -

This decision correctly interpreted the definition of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994, which was followed by the Supreme Court.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Tribunal demanding service tax from the appellants. The court held that the services rendered by the appellants did not qualify as 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' within the meaning of Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994, as they did not take custody of the coal or arrange for its transportation as forwarders. The court quashed the demand for service tax made from the appellants.

FAQs:

Q1. What is the significance of this Supreme Court decision?

A1. This decision clarifies the scope of the term 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' under the Service Tax law and overrules the earlier wider interpretation given by the Tribunal in the Prabhat Zarda case.

Q2. What activities would qualify as 'Clearing and Forwarding' services under Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994?

A2. According to the court, the services should be connected with clearing and forwarding operations, which involve activities pertaining to clearing the goods from legal detention and forwarding them to a particular destination at the instance and directions of the principal.

Q3. Can a commission agent who merely procures orders for the principal be considered a 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent'?

A3. No, the court held that a mere commission agent engaged to procure orders and not entrusted with the work of clearing and forwarding of goods would not qualify as a 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' under Section 65(25).

Q4. What was the impact of this decision on the appellants?

A4. The demand for service tax made from the appellants (Coal Handlers (P) Ltd. and Chhattisgarh Coal Handling Company) was quashed, as the court ruled that their services did not fall within the definition of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent.

Q5. Does this decision have any implications for other similar cases or industries?

A5. Yes, this decision sets a precedent for interpreting the scope of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agent' under the Service Tax law, which could impact other similar cases or industries where such services are provided.

Appellants in both these appeals are the assessees and the issue involved in these appeals is common. Both the appellants provide certain services as Agents under the contracts signed with their respective Principals. The issue is as to whether such services provided by them would label them as Clearing & Forwarding Agents (for short, 'C&F Agents') and, thus, make them

liable to service tax in accordance with the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as amended from time to time. Since the issue to be decided in both the appeals is identical and also arises almost in the same factual background, it would serve our purpose if we reproduce the facts from Civil Appeal No. 7215 of 2004.

2) The appellant in this case is providing certain services as Agent.

Such services are provided to M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements

Limited and M/s. Ambuja Cements Eastern Limited (hereinafter

collectively referred to as 'Ambuja companies'). At the material

time, these were public sector undertakings under the

Government of Gujarat. These industries need coal as a raw

material for production of cement, which is the main

manufacturing activity undertaken by the said companies.

Industries that need coal as a raw material generally approach the

Ministry of Industries, Government of India with their

requirements. The Ministry of Industries, after enquiry,

recommends to the Ministry of Coal the quantity that is required to

be supplied to such industries. Thereafter, the Ministry of Coal,

as per the norms prescribed, allots the coal to these industries

through the Long Term Linkage Committee indicating the coal

companies and the location from which coal can be made

available to them. While fixing the locations from where the coal

is to be supplied to such companies, the Committee takes into

account the Railways commitment for movement of the coal. The

Railways is responsible for placing of rail rakes according to the

programme. To maintain constant liaison with the Railways for

the actual placing of coal rakes, such companies generally

appoint its Agents. The aforesaid Ambuja companies, for this

purpose, had appointed the appellant for this purpose and a

contract was entered into between the said Ambuja companies

and the appellant. Under this Agency agreement, the appellant

was required to undertake the following activities on behalf of the

Ambuja companies:

(i) following up the allotment of coal rakes by the Railways;

(ii) expediting and supervising the loading and labeling of rail

wagons;

(iii) drawing the samples of coal loaded on the wagons;

(iv) complying with the formalities relating to payments for

freight to the Railways; and

(v) dispatching of rail receipts to Ambuja companies.

3) The issue that arose for consideration was as to whether

aforesaid services were liable to service tax under the provisions

of the Act. By the said Act, sub-section (25) was inserted in

Section 65, which defines C&F Agent as under:

“(25) “clearing and forwarding agent” means any

person who is engaged in providing any service,

either directly or indirectly, connected with the

clearing and forwarding operations in any manner

to any other person and includes a consignment

agent;”

We may also note that the taxable service as provided in

Section 65(48)(j) of the Act in relation to service of C&F Agent

means 'any service provided to a client, by a clearing and

forwarding agent in relation to clearing and forwarding operations

in any manner'.

4) It so happened that the appellant had filed an application for

registration in Form ST-I under Section 69 of Chapter V of the Act

on November 17, 1999 for the service of 'handling agents' (C&F

Agent). Certification of Registration was granted on November

18, 1999. Thereafter, on May 30, 2000, the appellant surrendered

the said Registration Certificate on the ground that services

rendered by them were not covered by Section 65(25) of the Act.

The application for surrender was, however, rejected by the

Superintendent of Central Excise (SCE), Service Tax Cell,

Kolkata-I, Commissionerate on February 08, 2001 by passing the

Order-in-Original. The SCE, in that order, took the view that the

services rendered by the appellant under the aforesaid contract

with Ambuja companies would be covered by Section 65(25) of

the Act and, therefore, exigible to service tax. Aggrieved by the

said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the

Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata, which was

also dismissed by the Commissioner on November 05, 2002.

This order was challenged by the appellant before the Customs,

Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'CESTAT').

5) The CESTAT has also dismissed the appeal by the impugned

order dated May 24, 2004 by observing that the matter is covered

by its own judgment in the case of M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory

(India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna. The

Tribunal has noted in this behalf that in the said case the Bench of

the Tribunal had considered the definition of C&F Agent and has

held that such definition was very wide and includes any service,

even provided indirectly. It was also noted that the said judgment

was delivered on February 09, 2002 and thereafter Finance Act of

2003 was introduced and the new service, viz. 'Business Auxiliary

Service' appearing in Section 65(19) was introduced. The said

service is in relation to promotion or marketing of service provided

by the client; any customer care service provided on behalf of the

client and any incidental or auxiliary support service such as

billing, collection or recovery of cheques, accounts and

remittance, evaluation of prospective customer and public relation

services, and includes services as a commission agent. The

CESTAT, however, held that the activities undertaken by the

appellant were not covered by the expression 'Business Auxiliary

Service', which include Commission Agents, and stand exempted

from service tax with effect from July 01, 2003 vide Notification

No. 13/2003 dated June 20, 2003. Therefore, no such exemption

was available. The relevant paras of the impugned order

containing the aforesaid discussion are as under:

“5) The appellants have agreed that the issue

involved stands decided in the case of Prabhat

Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. (Supra). The Tribunal

under the said judgment has observed that as per

definition of clearing and forwarding agent, he is a

person who is engaged for providing any service,

either directly or indirectly connected with clearing

and forwarding operations in any manner to any

other person and includes a commission agent.

The use of the expression “any” and “indirectly” in

the said definition of clearing and forwarding agent,

is indicative of the fact that the scope of the

services to be provided by clearing and forwarding

agent is quite wide. He is not only the person who

is actually dealing with the goods, which has to be

termed as clearing and forwarding agent, but even

if the services are indirect and if the same are

connected with the clearing and forwarding

operations in any manner of the other persons, he

would be covered within the scope of the said

definition. The appellants in the instant case

render their services in all the sections of pre load

of the coal rakes i.e. obtaining consent on behalf of

their customers, sanctions from the office of

Executive Director-Rail Movement, supervising

loading of the wagons, sending samples and

assuring the proper quality and quantities,

complying with the formalities relating to payments

for freight. As such, it is quite clear that the

appellant is covered by the definition of clearing

and forwarding agent, as interpreted by the

Tribunal in the above referred case of Prabhat

Zarda.

6) The appellants have alternative contention that

they are covered by the new i.e. Business Auxiliary

Service introduced vide Finance Act of 2003.

However, we find that the said services are in the

nature of promotional or marketing of the

customers goods or in the nature of doing the other

routine type of jobs like billing or collection of

cheques, maintenance of accounts and evaluation

of prospective customers and public relation

services. The services being provided by the

appellant cannot be equated to the above. It is

also seen that the expression 'commission agent'

has been explained by the Notification dated 20th

June, 2003 reported in 155 ELT N-171, vide

paragraph 2.1.3 it has been clarified that C&F

agents work on commission basis do not fall under

the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service', in as

much as they are substantially covered within the

definition C & F service. It has, further, been

clarified that under Section 65A of Finance Act,

1994, it has also been provided that in case of

overlap, a service would be classified under the

head, (a) which provides most specific description,

(b) in case of a composite service having

combination of different taxable services, the

service which give them their essential character

and (c) in case the test of (a) and (b) does not

resolve, the service which comes earlier in the

clauses of Section 65, i.e. the service that was

subjected to service tax earlier. Since Insurance

services and C & F Services are more specific

description and were also subjected to service tax

prior to imposition of tax on business auxiliary

service, the insurance agents, C & F agents

working on commission basis would fall under

those respective categories. From this, it follows

that a particular service can be taxed only under

one head of service.”

6) As is clear from the reading of the aforesaid extracted portion of

the order, the Tribunal has rested its impugned decision on its

earlier judgment in the case of Prabhat Zarda (supra) and the

reasons contained in the said judgment are restated in support of

the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment.

7) It so happened that the ratio of the decision in Prabhat Zarda

(supra) was doubted by another Bench of the Tribunal and the

said Bench referred the matter to the larger Bench. On reference

being made, the Full Bench of the Tribunal decided the issue and

on the aforesaid aspect decision in Prabhat Zarda (supra) has

been overruled by it. The judgment of the Full Bench is known as

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Chennai. It gets revealed from the decision of the larger Bench

that after taking note of the definition of 'clearing and forwarding

agent' (which has already been extracted above), the larger

Bench observed that the service should be connected with

clearing and forwarding operations. The 'clearing and forwarding'

operations would be various activities having bearing on

clearance of goods, which would involve documentary processes

and arrangements for transfer of goods to their destination, which

process may also involve clearance at subsequent stages during

forwarding operations. In the opinion of the larger Bench, the

procurer of orders on commission basis renders services which

are not connected with such clearing and forwarding operations,

which have bearing on the movement of goods. It also mentioned

that normally a C&F Agent undertakes the following activities:

(i) receiving the goods from the factories or premises of the

principal or his agents;

(ii) warehousing these goods;

(iii) receiving despatch orders from the principal;

(iv) arranging despatch of goods as per the directions of the

principal by engaging transport on his own or through the

authorized transporters of the principal;

(v) maintaining records of the receipt and despatch of goods

and the stock available at the warehouse; and

(vi) preparing invoices on behalf of the principal.

8) Since the appellant in that case was engaged only for procuring

purchase orders for vendor on commission basis and was not

engaged in any of the above activities, the larger Bench

concluded that the services provided by the said appellant would

not fall within the definition of 'clearing and forwarding agent' as

contained in the Act. The detailed discussion on this aspect runs

as follows:

“9.3 An agent engaged only for procuring

purchase orders for the vendor on commission

basis does not engage in any of the above

activities, directly or indirectly. Commission agent

engaged to procure orders and not entrusted with

the work of clearing and forwarding of the goods

would be a person who, in the ordinary course of

business, makes contracts for sale or purchase of

goods for others. The definition of "commission

agent" in Section 2(aaa) of the Central Excise Act,

1944, would apply in relation to service tax as it

applies in relation to duty of excise by virtue of

Sub-section (121) or Section 65 of the Act.

Services of commission agent are included in the

definition of "business auxiliary service" under

Sub-section (19) of Section 65 w.e.f. 1-7-2003,

which includes service of a commission agent. As

defined in Explanation (a) to Sub-section (19) of

Section 65 commission agent is a person who acts

on behalf of another person and causes sale or

purchase of goods, or provision or receipt of

services, for consideration, and includes any

person who, while acting on behalf of another

person: deals with goods or services or documents

of title to such goods or services; or collects

payment of sale price of such goods or services; or

guarantees for collection or payment for such

goods or services; or undertakes any activities

relating to such sale or purchase of such goods or

services. This clearly shows that the activity of

mere procurement of purchase orders for the

principal on commission basis of a commission

agent is treated separately by the Parliament from

the activities of a clearing and forwarding agent.

Activity of procuring orders is thus independent of

clearing and forwarding operations. The agents

doing these activities can be different. Moreover,

clearing and forwarding operations do not flow

directly or indirectly from mere procurement of

orders. There is no obligation on the person

procuring orders as a commission agent for the

principal, only by virtue of that agency, to carry out

clearing and forwarding operations in respect of the

goods which are to be supplied pursuant to the

orders so procured.

10. It appears to us that the expressions "directly or

indirectly" and "in any manner" occurring in the

definition of "clearing and forwarding agent" cannot

be isolated from the activity of clearing and

forwarding operations. A person may undertake to

provide service of procurement of orders as agent

of the principal without agreeing to provide services

of clearing and forwarding of the goods. Clearing

and forwarding has a very specific connotation in

the context of movement of goods from the supplier

to their destination and agents undertaking clearing

and forwarding operations may never have been

concerned with procurement of orders for the

goods which are cleared and forwarded. A person

entrusted with the work of commission agent for

procuring orders for the principal cannot insist on

also providing services as clearing and forwarding

agent in respect of those goods and it would be

open for the principal to engage some other person

for the purpose of forwarding such goods. In cases

where the buyer is under an obligation to take

delivery of the goods from the vendor's premises,

there would not be even any need on the part of

the vendor to engage any forwarding agent, nor

can a person engaged for the purpose of clearing

and forwarding operations, insist on procuring

orders for the principal in the absence of any

stipulation to that effect.

11. We, therefore, hold that mere procuring or

booking orders for the principal by an agent on

payment of commission basis would not amount to

providing services as "clearing and forwarding

agent", within the meaning of the definition of that

expression under Section 65(25) of the Finance

Act, 1994, as has been held in the decision of the

Tribunal in Prabhat Zarda Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. v.

CCE Patna reported in 2002 (145) ELT : 2002 (50)

RLT 326 (CEGAT-KOL.). The decision in Prabhat

Zarda Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. stands overruled to the

extent of the aforesaid ratio laid down thereunder.

The reference is answered accordingly. All these

appeals will now be placed before the concerned

Division Bench for decision on merits in the light of

this judgment and in accordance with law.

(emphasis added)”

9) Significantly, the Revenue accepted the aforesaid decision in the

case of Larsen & Toubro (supra) and did not file any appeal

thereagainst. Even otherwise, we find that the larger Bench of the

Tribunal in the said case has rightly interpreted the definition of

'clearing and forwarding agent' contained in Section 65(25) of the

Act. Notwithstanding the aforesaid dicta of the larger Bench,

learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that

judgment in Prabhat Zarda (supra) has not been overruled

entirely, as is clear from the reading of para 11 of the judgment

where the larger Bench has said that Prabhat Zarda (supra)

'stands overruled to the extent of the aforesaid ratio laid down

thereunder'. His endeavour was to demonstrate that in the

present case the Tribunal in the impugned judgment had rightly

relied upon Prabhat Zarda (supra) and when the services

rendered by the appellant are looked into, it would clearly fall

within the definition of 'clearing and forwarding agent' contained in

Section 65(25) of the Act.

Let us, therefore, examine whether services rendered by the

appellant would qualify it as C&F Agent?

10) It would be relevant to point out the definition of 'forwarding

agent', as known in legal parlance, from Black's Law Dictionary

(Seventh Edition), which is as under:

“forwarding agent. 1. A person or company whose

business is to receive and ship goods for others –

Also termed freight-forwarder. 2. A freight-

forwarder who assembles less-than-carload

shipments 'small shipments' into carload

shipments, thus taking advantage of lower freight

rates.”

The Penguin Business Dictionary defines this expression in

the following words:

“Forwarding agent. A GENERAL AGENT who

specializes in moving goods from a factory or port

of entry to their proper destination. Such an agent

normally owns the transport necessary for this work

and often arranges FREIGHT and customs

formalities for his principal.”

In Fourth Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England (Volume 5),

the characteristics of 'forwarding agents' are narrated in the

following manner:

“442. Characteristics of forwarding agents. A

forwarding agent is one who carries on the

business of arranging for the carriage of gods for

other people. It must be clearly understood that a

forwarding agent is not, in general, a carrier: he

does not obtain possession of the goods: and he

does not undertake the delivery of them at the

other end. All that he does is to act as agent for

the owner of the goods to make arrangements with

the people who do carry, such as shipowners, road

hauliers, railway authorities and air carriers, and to

make arrangements, so far as they are necessary,

for the intermediate steps between the ship and the

rail, the customs or anything else.

Although there is a clear distinction between

a forwarding agent and a carrier, the same person

may carry on both activities at once, and contract

sometimes as one and sometimes as the other.

The fact that a person describes himself as a

forwarding agent is not conclusive: and it is a

question of fact to be decided according to the

circumstances of each case whether a person

normally carrying on business as a forwarding

agent contracts solely as agent so as to establish a

direct contractual link between his customer and a

carrier (or possibly with several carriers, each

undertaking a different part of the transit), or

whether he contracts as principal to carry the

goods, the customer appreciating that he will

perform the contract vicariously through the

employment of sub-contractors. The nature of the

carriage, the language used by the parties in

describing the role of the person concerned, and

any course of dealing between the parties will be

relevant factors.

Persons properly described as shipping and

forwarding agents frequently act as carriers

themselves with respect to part of the carriage, for

example, by performing collection and delivery

services between the customers' premises, their

own depots, and warehouses, docks and carriers'

depots. In such cases they would have the rights

and duties of carriers with respect to such carriage

as they undertake personally, but the rights and

duties of forwarding agents with respect to the

remainder of the transit.

443. Rights and liabilities of forwarding agents.

The rights and liabilities of a forwarding agent are

governed by the general principles of the law of

agency: and so he is entitled to be indemnified

against all expenses incurred on behalf of his

principal and to be paid his proper charges for his

services. He is liable for failure to make proper

arrangements for the carriage and for ancillary

matters which he has undertaken, such as customs

clearance. He is not liable for the failings of

persons with whom he makes contracts on behalf

of his principal, unless he know of those failings

and ought to have taken action either to remedy

them or at least to inform his principal so that

damage might be avoided or mitigated: thus he is

under no duty to supervise the actions of carriers

whom he reasonably and properly expects to

perform their normal obligations competently.

In ordinary transactions a forwarding agent

is not liable for failing to insure the goods, in the

absence of instructions from his customer to do so:

but he may, in certain circumstances, be liable for

not consulting his customer and advising him as to

the proper transport and insurance arrangements

which should be made for valuable goods.

A forwarding agent is not normally

personally liable to pay the charges of carriers

whom he engages to carry the gods on behalf of

his principal; but there is a custom of the London

freight market that forwarding agents incur

personal liability to shipowners for the payment of

freight or of dead freight for booked space left

unfilled.

A forwarding agent who tenders dangerous

goods to carriers without warning them of their

nature or of the precautions which should be taken

in their carriage is personally liable to the carriers

for any resulting damage through breach of the

implied warranty that the goods are fit for carriage.”

11) From the reading of the definition contained in the aforesaid

provision, together with its dictionary meanings contained in Legal

and Commercial dictionaries, it becomes apparent that in order to

qualify as a C&F Agent, such a person is to be found to be

engaged in providing any service connected with 'clearing and

forwarding operations'. Of course, once it is found that such a

person is providing the services which are connected with the

clearing and forwarding operations, then whether such services

are provided directly or indirectly would be of no significance and

such a person would be covered by the definition. Therefore, we

have to see as to what would constitute clearing and forwarding

operations. As is clear from the plain meaning of the aforesaid

expression, it would cover those activities which pertain to

clearing of the goods and thereafter forwarding those goods to a

particular destination, at the instance and on the directions of the

principal. In the context of these appeals, it would essentially

include getting the coal cleared as an agent on behalf of the

principal from the supplier of the coal (which would mean

collieries in the present case) and thereafter dispatching/

forwarding the said coal to different destinations as per the

instructions of the principal. In the process, it may include

warehousing of the goods so cleared, receiving dispatch orders

from the principal, arranging dispatch of the goods as per the

instructions of the principal by engaging transport on his own or

through the transporters of the principal, maintaining records of

the receipt and dispatch of the goods and the stock available on

the warehouses and preparing invoices on behalf of the principal.

The larger Bench rightly enumerated these activities which the

C&F Agent is supposed to perform.

12) On the facts of the present case, we find that none of the

aforesaid activities are performed by the appellant. There is no

role of the appellant in getting the coal cleared from the collieries/

supplier of the coal. Movement of the coal is under the contract of

sale between the coal company and Ambuja companies. Even

the coal is loaded on to the railway wagons by the coal company.

The goods are not under any legal detention from which they

need to be freed by the appellant. Not only this, destination of the

goods is known to the coal company and the railway rakes are

placed by the coal company for the said destinations. The

destination is the factories of the principal itself, namely, Ambuja

companies, where the coal is to be delivered by the coal company

as per pre-determined/agreed covenants between them.

Therefore, there is no occasion for Ambuja companies to instruct

the appellant to dispatch/forward the goods to a particular

destination which is already fixed as per the contract between the

coal company and the Ambuja companies. The appellant does

not even undertake any loading operation. The primary job of the

appellant, as per the contract between the appellant and the

Ambuja companies, is of supervising and liaisoning with the coal

company as well as the Railways to see that the material required

by Ambuja companies is loaded as per the schedule. At no stage

custody of the coal is taken by the appellant or transportation of

the coal, as forwarders, is arranged by the appellant. We are,

thus, of the clear opinion that the services rendered by the

appellant would not qualify as C&F Agent within the meaning of

Section 65(25) of the Act.

13) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals are allowed and

the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside by

quashing the demand of service tax made from the appellants.

No costs.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9967 OF 2014

The Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata, is aggrieved by

the orders dated August 21, 2013 passed by the High Court of

Calcutta, which has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by the

impugned judgment, refusing to entertain the said appeal which

was preferred by the Revenue against orders dated April 02, 2013

passed by CESTAT. In the said appeal before the CESTAT, it had

taken the view, in the case of same appellant, that the appellant

was not liable to pay any service tax as it was not covered by the

definition of C&F Agent as contained in Section 65(25) of the Act.

The appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed by the High

Court on the ground that Civil Appeal No. 5159 of 2013 is pending

in this Court. Since the said appeal of the appellant is allowed by

us, as a consequence, this appeal warrants to be dismissed and it

is ordered accordingly.

No costs.

(A.K. SIKRI)

(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 05, 2015.