ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Heard the learned SDR and none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice of hearing.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby a demand of service tax was set aside on the ground that respondents are not providing services as clearing and forwarding agent.
3. The service tax is demanded from the respondents as C & F agent. As per the provisions of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, the definition of ‘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.
4. As per the agreement between Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and the respondent herein, TISCO has appointed the respondent as a consignment agents for handling rejected/scrap materials. And as per the terms of agreement, the material is to be collected by the respondent at Jamshedpur and thereafter, the material so collected is stored at respondent’s place and is to be delivered to the customer of TISCO. Revenue relied upon the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chennai 2006 (3) S.T.R. 355. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that whether services provided in either clearing and forwarding or both will fall within the definition of ‘clearing and forwarding agent’. Further, we find that as per the contract, the respondents are appointed as consignment agent and the consignment agent is included in the definition of ‘clearing and forwarding agent’. In these circumstances, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable and the appeal is allowed. Order-in-Original is restored.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)