TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - C/1140/2008 - A/581/2009-WZB/C-IV/SMB - Dated:- 15-10-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) Shri C.S. Biradar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Respondent. [ Order]. - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of vessels. They have been carrying out their manufacturing activities at their yard at Rascaim. The yard has the necessary licence under Sections 58 and 65 of the Customs Act. A major part of the materials required for the manufacture of vessels is procured from indigenous sources and the rest of the materials are imported. During the material period, the manufacturing activity was carried out under supervision by officers of customs. The Department could claim cost recovery charges/Merch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, they should be given immediate permission for de-bonding of their vessel. Ultimately, by a letter dated 14-11-2007, the appellant claimed refund of Rs.6,89,096/- which had been paid under protest towards cost recovery charges and which, according to them, was not payable at all. Acting upon this claim, the Assistant Commissioner declined re fund after observing that the cost recovery charges had been rightly paid as per the rules in force. An appeal filed by the party against the Assistant Commissioner's order did not succeed. The appellate authority took the view that the refund claim could not be entertained for want of successful challenge to the earlier demands of cost recovery charges. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Industries Exports Ltd. - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 137 (Tri.- LB) apart from Priya Blue Industries (supra). The case law has been cited in support of the plea that the refund claim in question is not maintainable inasmuch as the earlier demands of cost recovery charges coupled with coercive proposals under Section 142 of the Customs Act were not challenged. In his rejoinder, learned counsel has reiterated that the letters issued by the Assistant Commissioner demanding cost recovery charges were only of administrative character and were not appealable. On this basis, the refund claim was not liable to be rejected on the ground stated by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I have found mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
