Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ram Shree Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Ram Shree Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 01, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39542

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Ram Shree Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(186)ELT411TriDel

Excerpt

1. in this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the commissioner (appeals) has dropped the service tax demand against the respondents.2. we have heard both the sides and gone through the record. the service tax for the disputed period has been demanded from the respondents on the ground that they were working as clearing & forwarding agents for the different parties. ld. commissioner (appeals) has detailed the services which were provided by the respondents to various parties, in para 4 of the impugned order and come to the conclusion that they did not fall within the category of 'clearing and forwarding' agents made by him in para 4 of the impugned order. it is quite evident from the details of services given by him, in that para, it is evident that the respondents were only working as commission agents, being involved in the finalisation of sales transactions between the purchaser and the buyers. they were only getting their commission. they neither handled the goods of the seller, nor they carried any clearing and forwarding operations. we do not find any sufficient material/evidence on the record for disagreeing with the conclusion of the commissioner (appeals). therefore, the impugned order passed by him is upheld. the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal the revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the Service tax demand against the respondents.

2. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The Service tax for the disputed period has been demanded from the respondents on the ground that they were working as clearing & forwarding agents for the different parties. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has detailed the services which were provided by the respondents to various parties, in Para 4 of the impugned order and come to the conclusion that they did not fall within the category of 'clearing and forwarding' agents made by him in Para 4 of the impugned order. It is quite evident from the details of services given by him, in that para, it is evident that the respondents were only working as commission agents, being involved in the finalisation of sales transactions between the purchaser and the buyers. They were only getting their commission. They neither handled the goods of the seller, nor they carried any clearing and forwarding operations. We do not find any sufficient material/evidence on the record for disagreeing with the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned order passed by him is upheld. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial