Archana Wadhwa, J.
1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical.
2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the dispute relates to the refund of Service Tax paid on various services like clearing and forwarding agency, test analysis warehousing storage and CHA service in terms of provision of notification No. 17/2009 -ST dated 7.7.09
3. On going through the impugned order, I find that lower authorities have rejected the refund claim on the ground that CHA should not have paid the service tax on the entire amount including the statutory levies and the reimbursable expenses etc. as also on the ground that whereas services stand provided by various agencies, invoices stand issued by other agencies acting on behalf of the service provider and the service recipient.
4. I find that the legal issue are no more res integra and stand decided by following decisions of the Tribunal:
1. Neelav Jaiswal vs. CCE Allahabad [AIT-2013-135-CESTAT];
2. Durhan Spintex vs. CST, Ahmedabad [2012 (28) STR 366 (Tri-Ahmd)];
3. Indworth Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur [2012 (25) STR 78 (Tri-Mum)];
4. CCE, Meerut I vs. Ankushis Enterprises [2013 (30STR 612 (Tri-Del)];
5. CCE Chandigarh vs. TEAM S and S [2011 (21) STR 290 (Tri-Del)];
6. Chowgule and Co. (Salt Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Rajkot [2013 (31) STR 334 (Tri-Ahmd)]
5. Suffice it to say that each and every objection of the Revenue stand covered by the above referred decisions. As such, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of law declared in the above referred matters as also after verification of the documentary evidence.
6. Appeals are allowed by way of remand.