Page 149 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., LUDHIANA v. CRUISER IMPEX PVT. LTD. 67
authority has erred in holding that the respondent acting as the pure agent but in
view of investigation, is acting as the Customs House Agent, and therefore liable
to pay service tax on the gross amount charged including that amount which has
been recovered by way of debit note from their clients through Deep & Pooja.
5. Revenue is also of the view that non-registration of respondent as
CHA under Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short Customs Act) was
incorrect and arbitrary for the purpose of payment of service tax under the Act.
The Customs House Licensing Regulations, 2004 provides that no persons shall
carry on business of CHA unless he has been granted a licence under this Regu-
lation. But there are certain exceptions under Rule 3 of the CHA Regulations.
CHA Regulations which has been impressed upon by the Revenue is reproduced
as under :
3. Customs House Agents to be licensed. - No person shall carry on
business as a Customs House Agent relating to the entry or departure of a
conveyance or the import or export of goods at any Customs Station unless
such person holds a licence granted under these regulations :
Provided that no licence under these regulations shall be required by :-
(a) an importer or exporter transacting any business at a Customs
Station solely on his own account;
(b) any employee of any person or a firm transacting business
generally on behalf of such person or firm, and holding an
identity card or a temporary pass issued by the Deputy Com-
missioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs;
(c) an agent employed for one or more vessels or aircrafts in or-
der solely to enter or clear such vessels or aircrafts for work
incidental to his employment as such agent.
6. It is also contended on behalf of the Revenue that the respondent
was acting under the delegated authority in terms of Regulation 19 of CHA Reg-
ulations and for that they have obtained authorisation from Pooja which finds
mention in Para 5.4(ii) of the show cause notice which is as under :
“The noticee started rendering impugned services through M/s. Deep
Handling Services w.e.f. 16-4-2010. For rendering impugned services, Shri
Kuldeep Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Deep Handling Services had obtained
authorisation dated 22-3-2010 (copy appended as Annexure-I to this notice)
as H-card holder from M/s. Pooja Travels & Cargo Services, New Delhi.
Further, prior to 16-4-2010, the noticee was using license of M/s. Pooja
Travels & Cargo Services, New Delhi through authorisation to Shri Prakash
Chand, as their G-card holder”.
7. This clearly indicated that the respondent is not having registration
as Customs House Agent but are acting as the delegated authority, under CHA
Regulations, on behalf of the CHA M/s. Pooja. The respondent was paying the
service tax only on a part of gross amount charged but not including the substan-
tial portion of the amount received through the debit notes. This fact was com-
pletely ignored by the adjudicating authority.
8. It was also contended by the Revenue that although the respondent
has said that the various other charges, which were recovered from their client
was in the nature of services which were required to be performed by the re-

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  149