TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The denial of exemption to the appellant on the ground that the due application was not filed in time and the matter was not followed-up is not justifiable. In any case, the matter has to be considered by the competent authority, namely the CBEC, Ministry of Finance, and not by the Commissioner - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No.52524/2015 CU(DB) - Final Order No.50679/2017 - Dated:- 8-2-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri B.K. Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri K. Poddar, DR for the respondent. ORDER The appeal is against order dated 30.03.2015 of Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur. The appellants were appointed as Custodi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2009-2010, when the number of shipping bills were less than the standard prescribed. 2. The Original Authority decided the case vide the impugned order and held that the appellants have to pay the full amount of ₹ 4.12 crores as the Ministry in the said guidelines decided that the sanction of exemption from Cost Recovery Charges shall be issued for each ICD, on yearly base, keeping in view the performance during the preceding year. It was also mentioned that continuation of post and personnel in the ICD shall be considered by the CBEC only after the custodian has deposited the amount for the defaulted year. Any request for granting fresh exemption shall be considered afresh in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specific Cost Recovery Posts deployed in the ICD at Jodhpur w.e.f. February, 2009. The new Regulations came into force in March, 2009. Thereafter, the appellants were called upon to comply with the various conditions mentioned in the said Regulations. After several communications, the jurisdictional officers were satisfied about the compliance of various conditions. The custodianship of the appellant was renewed for 5 years by the jurisdictional Commissioner communicated vide letter dated 31.3.2010. 5. The impugned order did not identify that under which provisions the demand of arrears of Cost Recovery Charges are being confirmed. The inquiry report clearly brought out the facts regarding the performance of the appellant in the ICD and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant to pay Cost Recovery Charges for the period 1.4.2009 to 31.12.2012. Admittedly, during the said period, various guidelines and instructions have been issued by the Ministry to deal with cost of staff deployed in the ICDs. The appellants were appointed as Custodians of ICD at Jodhpur. One of the conditions specified in the appointment is that they should pay Cost Recovery Charges for the officers deployed there. However, the Ministry vide their letter dated 23.05.2006 exempted the appellant from payment of Cost Recovery Charges. The Annexure to the said letter clearly states that the Cost Recovery Charges for 13 posts sanctioned for ICD at Jodhpur have been exempted. Thereafter, on 24.2.2010, the Ministry issued further clarification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inistry and the decision taken by the Ministry thereupon. The action of the Commissioner in proceeding and confirming the Cost Recovery Charges without due consideration of various guidelines issued by the Ministry and more specifically regarding the entitlement of the appellant for exemption, which has already been granted by the Ministry vide their letter dated 23.05.2006, is not legally sustainable. The denial of exemption to the appellant on the ground that the due application was not filed in time and the matter was not followed-up is not justifiable. In any case, the matter has to be considered by the competent authority, namely the CBEC, Ministry of Finance, and not by the Commissioner. We note that none of the guidelines brought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
