Case Law Details
Enbee Education Centre Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Introduction: The Enbee Education Centre Pvt Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST case before CESTAT Ahmedabad delves into the nuanced difference between a ‘consignment agent’ and a ‘commission agent.’ The judgment, argued by Counsel Mahesh Raichandani and Anshul Jain, provides crucial insights.
Case Background: The appellant, engaged in Commercial Training or Coaching Services, faced a service tax demand for ‘Business Auxiliary Services.’ The demand was based on the alleged receipt of services from a foreign service provider acting as a Commission Agent.
Appellant’s Defense: The appellant argued that their foreign subsidiary acted as a consignment cum clearing and forwarding agent, not a commission agent. The subsidiary’s role involved receiving goods, clearing them in the USA, and forwarding to customers based on appellant’s directions.
Agreement Details: The consignment agreement outlined that books sold/shipped to the subsidiary were on consignment basis. The subsidiary retained a 15% commission on the sale price, transferring the remaining 85% to the appellant.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
