Page 147 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., LUDHIANA v. CRUISER IMPEX PVT. LTD. 65

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 65 (Tri. - Chan.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, CHANDIGARH
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and Bijay Kumar, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., LUDHIANA
Versus
CRUISER IMPEX PVT. LTD.

Final Order No. A/60737/2019-CU(DB), dated 21-2-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/52384/2015-(DB)
Demand - Customs House Agents Service - Assessee acting as pure
agent engaged in arranging services of CHA for clearance of import and export
of cargo on behalf of clients - Revenue aggrieved by impugned order dropping
demand raised, on ground that assessee not covered under definition of Cus-
toms House Agent under Section 65(35) of Finance Act, 1994 - HELD : Show
cause notice ambiguous inasmuch as same not disclosing whether contravened
value related to CHA service or clearing and forwarding agent service or to
some other service - Further, Commissioner correctly held that service provider
can be called as Customs House Agent, if granted licence temporarily or oth-
erwise, under CHA Regulation made under Section 142(2) of Customs Act,
1962 - Assessee registered as Customs House Agent by Service Tax Depart-
ment even though same contrary to provisions of Finance Act as evident from
definition of Customs House Agent under said Section 65(35) ibid and taxable
services under provisions of Section 65(105) ibid - Although certain amount
recovered from clients towards service provided need to be appropriated, extra
amount collected, i.e., various expenses incurred for services like documenta-
tion expenses, crane handling charges, labour charges, weighment expenses
and miscellaneous expenses and Service Tax on said debit note, rightly treated
as reimbursement expenses - Also, transportation charges, etc., paid by client
and Service Tax discharged by client as consignee on reverse charge basis,
therefore, cannot be charged to Service Tax on assessee’s account once again -
Erroneous registration not to render assessee liable to pay Service Tax as CHA
- No infirmity in impugned order and same upheld - Section 65(35) of Finance
Act, 1994. [paras 11, 12, 13, 14]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Gurudev Handling Pvt. Ltd. — Final Order No. 60112/2018,
decided by CESTAT, Chandigarh — Referred ........................................................................... [Para 11]
Intercontinental Consultancy and Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.) — Relied on ............................................................................... [Para 11]
Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (38) S.T.R. 705 (Tribunal) — Relied on ..... [Para 11]
Shram Seva Associates v. Commissioner — 2015 (40) S.T.R. 377 (Tribunal) — Relied on ............ [Para 13]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri G.M. Sharma, Authorised Representative, for
the Appellant.
Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Bijay Kumar, Member (T)]. - The present appeal is filed by

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  147