C.C.E.&S.T., Indore vs M/S. Suraj Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Appeal No.ST/850/2009-CU[DB]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.IND-I/174/2009, dated 31.07.2009 passed by the C.C.E.&S.T.(Appeals), Indore]

C.C.E.&S.T., Indore Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Suraj Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd. Respondent

Appearance

Mr. Ranjan Khanna, DR - for the appellant

Mr. Santosh Upadhyay, Advocate - for the respondent

CORAM: Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

Final Order No.53353/2015, dated 01.10.2015

Per Mr. R.K. Singh :

The appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 31.07.2009 in terms of which refund claim of Rs.27,44,975/- was allowed to the respondent under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007 holding that the service was provided by the Customs House Agent (CHA) (Section 65 (105) (h) of the Finance Act, 1994) in relation to export of goods.

2. Revenue has contended that the service was not provided a licenced CHA. However, Revenue conceded that the bills inter alia charging service tax belonged to the parties who are working under CHA and had been authorised by CHA and therefore it is a case where services were provided by person authorised by CHA.

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly observed that the service was provided by the parties, who were authorised by CHA, who was collecting service tax from the respondent and depositing the same in the Govt. account.

4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. It is not disputed by Revenue that service tax was collected by CHA from the respondent and was deposited in the Govt. account. Thus, as far as the respondent is concerned, CHA gave it the service and collected the money and service tax for the same. The documents showed that service tax was paid under CHA service and was never questioned by Revenue.

5. In the light of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in Revenues appeal and dismiss the same.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

SSK

-3-