Service Bureau (Cha) Vs. Cc

Service Bureau (Cha) vs Cc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 31, 2003

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/31772

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/31772
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Usha, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Jul 31, 2003
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Service Bureau (Cha)

Respondent

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(90)ECC502

Excerpt

.....international shipping services. they did not express good reference about him. m/s indo international shipping services had denied any subletting of the licence by the appellant to them.3. on going through the materials relied on by the commissioner we find that they are not sufficient to come to a prima facie conclusion that the appellant was guilty of subletting its licence to m/s indo international shipping services or m/s dcfc logistics (p) ltd. a reading of the order would clearly show that both mr. pintoo and shri naresh kumar mahto have denied the signature on the shipping bill. the commissioner has observed that at present it is not clear who actually signed the shipping bill so long as it is not shown that a person authorised by the appellant has signed the bill and allowed m/s dcfc logistics (p) ltd. or m/s. indo international shipping services (p) ltd. to carry out further procedure for clearing the goods, it cannot be assumed that the appellant had sublet its licence to m/s. dcfc logistics (p) ltd. or m/s. indo international shipping services (p) ltd. in the light of the above, we are of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the appellant on the allegation that they had sublet their licence to m/s. dcfc logistics (p) ltd. or m/s. indo international shipping services (p) ltd. if that be so, there is no justification for continuing the suspension of the licence of the appellant pending detailed investigations into the export fraud case.we, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.operative part of the order already pronounced in the open court on 31.7.2003.

Full Judgment

1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (I & G), New Delhi dated 11.7.2003 ordering continuation of the suspension of licence issued to the appellant as Custom House Agent. Initially by order dated 10.6.2003 Custom House Agent licence of the appellant had been suspended pending detailed enquiry on the ground that the appellant had adopted modus operandi to first file the shipping bills of unscrupulous exporter for exporting sub-standard goods through unauthorized persons and claim higher export benefits against their licence. It was also alleged that when later the fraud was detected the appellant denied connection with those persons/exporters/shippers. The above order was challenged before this Tribunal which resulted in Order No. 308/03-NB(A), dated 3.7.2003 remanding the case back to Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Delhi for passing fresh order after giving an opportunity to explain the position. Therefore, the appellant was heard and the impugned order dated 11.7.2003 was issued.

2. In the impugned order the Commissioner has held that the appellant was subletting their name to unauthorised persons for clearance of international cargo which is in contravention of the rules. To prevent CHA from misusing the licence, the Commissioner took the view that it is a fit case for suspension of the licence till investigations are completed in the matter. The Commissioner has entered a finding that the appellant was subletting their name to unauthorised persons for clearance of international cargo on the basis of the statement given by Shri Aman Deep Singh Chug, an employee of the appellant and also on the statement of one Mr. Pintoo. Shri Aman Deep Singh has stated that the appellants are subletting their licence to Mr. Kamal and M/s DGFC Logistics. On the other hand, Shri Vikas Singh who is a holder of G Card and is operating the business of the appellant has contended that Mr. Kamal and DCFC Logistics are the customers of the appellants. Kamal is an employee of M/s Indo International Shipping Services. The appellant is acting as Custom House Agent for M/s. Indo International Shipping Services and M/s DCFC Logistics and therefore, there is no merit in the allegation that the appellant was subletting its licence to them. M/s DCFC Logistics (P) Ltd. is Freight forwarder. Break Bulk Agents, IATA and consolidating Agents having agents worldwide. They are in the business of Supply Chain Management of International cargo.

Since they do not hold any Custom House clearance licence, they recommended the name of the appellant to their customers for Custom Clearance work for import and export cargo by sea and air. Their customers would then directly engage the appellant. To the above effect M/s DCFC Logistics has issued a certificate dated 16th July, 2003. In another communication dated 18.7.2003 addressed by Indo International Shipping Services it is stated that they are a shipping and freight forwarding company. Since they are not Custom Clearing Agents they recommended the names of some of CHAs including the appellant to their customers. Thereafter, the Custom House Agent would be in direct contact with the shipper. They also mentioned that Mr. Pintoo was their ex-employee who was forced to leave the company due to unethical behaviour. He was replaced by Kamal. When Mr. Pintoo wanted to get employment under the appellant, a reference was made to Indo International Shipping Services. They did not express good reference about him. M/s Indo International Shipping Services had denied any subletting of the licence by the appellant to them.

3. On going through the materials relied on by the Commissioner we find that they are not sufficient to come to a prima facie conclusion that the appellant was guilty of subletting its licence to M/s Indo International Shipping Services or M/s DCFC Logistics (P) Ltd. A reading of the order would clearly show that both Mr. Pintoo and Shri Naresh Kumar Mahto have denied the signature on the shipping bill. The Commissioner has observed that at present it is not clear who actually signed the shipping bill So long as it is not shown that a person authorised by the appellant has signed the bill and allowed M/s DCFC Logistics (P) Ltd. or M/s. Indo International Shipping Services (P) Ltd. to carry out further procedure for clearing the goods, it cannot be assumed that the appellant had sublet its licence to M/s. DCFC Logistics (P) Ltd. or M/s. Indo International Shipping Services (P) Ltd. In the light of the above, we are of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the appellant on the allegation that they had sublet their licence to M/s. DCFC Logistics (P) Ltd. or M/s. Indo International Shipping Services (P) Ltd. If that be so, there is no justification for continuing the suspension of the licence of the appellant pending detailed investigations into the export fraud case.

We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.

Operative part of the order already pronounced in the open Court on 31.7.2003.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Service Bureau (Cha) vs Cc Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K Usha, N T C.N.B.