ORDER
D.N. Panda, Member (J)
1. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Section 68 of finance Act, 1994 having made specific provision as to from whom the Service Tax shall be realisable and who shall be liable, there should not be any confusion to call a stranger who is not a service-provider (sic) to tax-net. According to him, Service Tax was realisable from the agents who procure business for the appellant, if at all any levy is realisable from them, vide the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE reported in 75 RLT 186. He further submitted that in Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that without specific mandate from whom the tax shall be realised, there cannot be any imaginary levy without letters of law. When the appellant was not the service-provider calling for information from them, they cannot be brought to tax-liability.
2. Learned D.R., on the other hand, submitted that the appellant had produced the entire list of agents who were engaged for procuring business for the appellant and considerations were paid to them. Therefore, the clearing and forwarding services rendered by the appellant should be taxed.
3. Heard both sides and perused the record. Record revealed that for procurement of business, agents were appointed by the appellant and for the services rendered by them, appropriate considerations were paid. Therefore, Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be interpreted in a manner that is not required, as held in Laghu Udyog Bharati by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The appellant being neither a service-provider nor a service-receiver, they should not be imaginarily taxed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid observations, the appeal of the appellant is allowed.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.