Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Vikram Ispat Versus Commissioner of Customs (Prev) , Mumbai

2015 (11) TMI 890 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Refund of supervision charges - The appellant paid the said supervision charges. However, on realizing that such ships are exempted by virtue of Notification No. 43/97, they applied for refund of the supervision charges. - Held that:- It is an admitted position that supervision charges are not required to be paid, however, the refund has been rejected solely on the ground that the appellants had asked for the supervision and the same was provided, therefore, refund cannot be granted. We find tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. S. Garg, Member (J) And Raju, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Sachin Chitnis, Adv For the Respondent : Shri M K Mall, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per Raju The appellant, M/s Vikram Ispat, are manufacturers of HB Sponge Iron. They are engaged in import of iron Ore Pellets/Iron Ore lumps. They also procured the same indigenously. While procuring the goods indigenously, they used ship for transportation as they do in case of import. 2. During unloading of material from ships, the appell .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and therefore, no supervision charges was required to be paid. 3. The appellants were utilizing services of foreign vessels on coastal run for the purpose of transportation of cargo from one Indian Port to another Indian Port. They had sought supervision from the Customs and supervision was provided by the Customs. The appellant paid the said supervision charges. However, on realizing that such ships are exempted by virtue of Notification No. 43/97, they applied for refund of the supervision ch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) observed as follows:- "Authority to charge the overtime is under Section 36 of Customs Act which says that no imported goods shall be loaded from and no export goods shall be loaded on any conveyance or any Sunday or any holiday observed by the Customs department or any other day after the working hours except after giving prescribed notice and on payment of prescribed fee if any. From .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e unloading of the coastal goods and the Customs department has provided the offices for such supervision then they should pay the overtime at a prescribed rate. If the appellant were of the opinion that no supervisions is required in that case they should not have asked for supervision of unloading of the coastal goods. When the service were provided as per the request by the appellant, then they have to pay, hence overtime paid cannot be refunded to them on the ground that supervision was not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version