TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/1746/2005 - A/86251/17/EB - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. V.S. Sejpal Advocate Sh. S.P., CA for the Appellant Sh. Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. A.R., for the Respondent ORDER Per Devender Singh The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order dated 25.02.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Raigad, Mumbai. 2. The brief issue in this appeal is whether the appellants are liable to pay the supervision charges for service of the staff on M.O.T. basis or on the Cost Recovery basis. 3. The appellants are holding license for Private Bonded Warehouse under Section 58 of the Custom Act, 1962 with permission to manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest paid and does not provide for refund of Cost Recovery Charges. 4. The party went in the appeal. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has noted in his order that the appellants vide their letter dt. 14.10.1998 requested the Jurisdictional Commissioner to permit them to pay the bond warehouse charges on as is where basis i.e. M.O.T. basis. The Commissioner vide letter dt. 05.03.1999, instructed the Assistant Commissioner to re-quantify the services rendered by the bond officer and Sepoy and Cost Recovery Charges on M.O.T. basis. This was done on the basis of the application dt. 14.10.1998. The lower Authority failed to make amendment to the said license as per instruction of the Commissioner. 5. On these facts, the Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harges for the period September 1997 to October 1998 on the basis of Cost Recovery. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not to decide these charges but to decide whether the order of Assistant Commissioner in defiance of instructions of the Commissioner was legal nor not. He relied upon the following case laws:- 1. Shree Pipes Ltd. V/s Union of India 1995(79) E.L.T. 405 (RAJ.) 2. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur-I Vs. Flair Filtration (P) Ltd. 2007 (209) E.L.T. 475 (Tri. Del.) 3. Commissioner of C. Ex., Rajkot Vs. Reliance Industries ltd. 2013 (294) E.L.T. 403 (Tri. LB) 4. G.T. Cargo Fittings India (P) Ltd. Vs CCE, New Delhi- 2004 (174) E.L.T. 319 (Tri. Del) 5. Granada Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Noida 2006 (204) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter had already been decided by the order dt. 05.03.1999 of the Commissioner communicated to the Assistant Commissioner. We find that the conclusion drawn by the appellants that the order of the Commissioner allowed them to pay on M.O.T basis for the entire period is erroneous and is not forthcoming from the letter dt. 05.03.1999. We also find that the initial condition of license was clear that payment will be on Cost Recovery Charges by the assessee and this finding has been given by the Adjudicating Authority in the Para 4 of the order. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has, therefore, reviewed the same and given his findings on the order of the Adjudicating Authority and other facts before him. We find that the order of the Ld. Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
