9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice was sent to the appellant seeking recovery of Rs. 9,95,614/- on account of Cost Recovery charges. This demand was for the period 1.1.2006 to 30.6.2009. The demand was made on two counts: - (i) That no Cost Recovery charges have been paid for the period 1.1.2006 to 15.7.2007 and (ii) that the charges paid for the period from 15.7.2007 to 30.6.2009 are at the rate at which officers were paid salary prior to revision by the VIth Pay Commission. 2. The appellant have Challenged this on the ground that during the period 1.1.2006 to 15.7.2007, no officer was posited to the unit. It was argued that since no officer has been posted, no cost recovery charges should be recovered from them in respect of that period. They also asserted that du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncreased economic activity and development of human resources. The increase in the quantum of imports and exports therefore has a direct proportionate impact upon the revenue garnering and overall development. As was already noticed supra, appointment of a custodian of the customs space identified under Section 8 of the Act is only for ensuring the integrity of such a place so that no revenue loss and duty evasion occurs there. Beyond that, a custodian has no other role. He is a facilitator by providing for foolproof or tamper proof premises so that goods do not leave the premises before they are cleared by the customs and correspondingly the necessary duty/revenue is collected smoothly by the State. It is purely incidental, that the custod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that so far the issue of recovery of supervision charges is concerned, it is a matter where the CESTAT has jurisdiction as such charges are collected in exercise of powers under Customs Act, however, in respect of rate at which the charges are to be recovered, it is an administrative decision against which the appeal before CESTAT is not maintainable. Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd. Vs. CBE&C, New Delhi - 2014 (299) ELT 320 (AP), has clearly held that in the case where no services are provided, no cost recovery charges can be demanded. The ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the instant case and therefore, it is held that no cost recovery can be done when there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
