Case Law Details
Laviosa Trimex Industries Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appellant is a CHA and they have issued the invoices showing the description as Custom House Agency Service Charges. Therefore, there is no dispute that the services on which the refund claim was made is indeed CHA Service. Moreover, even if any other service provided by CHA, the refund claim is admissible as per the Notification No. 17/09-ST which allow the refund in respect of services provided by CHA that means even if any service which even does not fall under the CHA Service but the same is provided by CHA, the same will be admissible for refund. In the Notification, it is not service specific but it is a service provider specific, hence any service provided by CHA, the refund is admissible. Accordingly, we are of the view that the ground taken by the lower authorities for denying the refund is absolutely against the statutory provision under the Notification No. 17/09-ST, therefore, the appellant is rightly entitled for the refund.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
In the present case the lower authorities have denied the refund of service tax in terms of Notification No. 17/09-ST on the ground that the refund is admissible on CHA Service, whereas the appellant have received various other services which are other than CHA services.
2. Shri Mahesh Basutkar, learned Assistant Account Manager of the Company submits that the bills raised by the CHA clearly mentioned the custom house agency charges, therefore, there is no dispute that the service received by the appellant are CHA Service. He also submitted the relevaant invoices of CHA which bears the shipping bill No. which correlates with the export consignment. He submits that since the refund claim was made against the CHA service, received by the appellant, refund cannot be rejected.
3. Shri R.K. Agarwal, learned (Superintendent) Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the lower authorities have denied the refund on the ground that the appellant have claimed the refund in respect of service which does not fall under the category of CHA Service. In this regard, we scan below a sample invoice of CHA.
From the above it is clear that the appellant is a CHA and they have issued the invoices showing the description as Custom House Agency Service Charges. Therefore, there is no dispute that the services on which the refund claim was made is indeed CHA Service. Moreover, even if any other service provided by CHA, the refund claim is admissible as per the Notification No. 17/09-ST which allow the refund in respect of services provided by CHA that means even if any service which even does not fall under the CHA Service but the same is provided by CHA, the same will be admissible for refund. In the Notification, it is not service specific but it is a service provider specific, hence any service provided by CHA, the refund is admissible. Accordingly, we are of the view that the ground taken by the lower authorities for denying the refund is absolutely against the statutory provision under the Notification No. 17/09-ST, therefore, the appellant is rightly entitled for the refund. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. Appeals are allowed.
(Pronounced in the open court on 25.01.2023)
