Page 150 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

68 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
spondent. The respondent also recovered these charges which were stated to
have been performed by the custodian for their normal course of furtherance of
import and export cargo. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has clearly felled
into error while dropping the demand of Service Tax as contained in the show
cause notice.
9. Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent, however, supports
the impugned order.
10. We have heard Learned AR for Revenue and also Learned Advo-
cate on behalf of the respondent.
11. It was submitted by the Learned Advocate that the similar issue has
been decided by this Tribunal in case of CCE, ST, Ludhiana v. Gurudev Handling
Private Limited vide Final Order No. 60112/2018 wherein it is held that various
deductions as claimed by the respondent is not chargeable to service tax in terms
of Rule 5(i) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, which has been struck down by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Intercontinental Consultancy and Tech-
nocrafts Private Limited v. Union of India [2018-TIOL-76-SC-ST = 2018 (10) G.S.T.L.
401 (S.C.)]. The amount which has been charged from the client by the respond-
ent is nothing but the reimbursement charge, which is not be included for the
purpose of payment of Service Tax in terms of Section 67 of the Act. Further
Learned Advocate also relied upon the decision of M/s. Link Intime India Private
Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I [2015 (38) S.T.R. 705 (Tri.-
Mumbai)], wherein it is held that the various expenditure such as posting charge
etc., as pure agent is not includible in the taxable service rendered by the appel-
lant. Paragraph 4.1 of the order which is relevant is as under;
4.1 As regard the demand for the period prior to 1-5-2006, the appellant
herein is rendering services of a ‘Share Transfer Agent’ and ‘Registrar to an
issue’ under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Registrar to an
Issue and Share Transfer Agents) Rules, 1993 and the connected regula-
tions. The said service came under the tax net for the first time on 1-5-2006.
Therefore, the question of demanding any service tax on reimbursement of
expenditure would not arise at all prior to 1-5-2006, even though the appel-
lant might have paid Service Tax wrongly under the category of ‘Business
Auxiliary Service’."
12. Further, we find that the respondent is also not registered as Cus-
toms House Agent which is also not disputed by the Revenue. At no point of
time the respondent has acted as the CHA, but only arranged the services of
CHA for the clearance of import and export cargo on behalf of their clients at the
CFS. In this regard, we also find it appropriate to refer to the definition of Cus-
toms House Agent under the Finance Act. The Customs House Agent is defined
under Section 65(35) as under;
“Section 65(35) Customs House Agent” means a person licensed temporari-
ly or otherwise, under the regulations made under sub-section (2) of section
146 of the Customs Act, 1962.”
The taxable service are defined under Section 65(105) of the Act which is as
under;

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  150