2017 (3) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 manufacture in Bond under Section 65 ibid. They filed refund claim of Rs. 1,34,006/- on the ground that they had deposited Rs. 40,000/- vide TR-6 Challan No. 01/97-98 dt. 05-09.1997/- and Rs. 1,39,428/- vide TR Challan No. 103 dt. 12.10.1998 under protest towards supervision charges on Cost Recovery Basis. They had thus deposited Rs. 1,79,428/- on this count. As against demand of Rs. 2,38,856/- for the period from Sep. 1997 to Oct. 1998 raised by the Superintendent of Central Excise Range, the assessee debited an amount of Rs. 30,984/. They further submitted that they have further calcu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ke amendment to the said license as per instruction of the Commissioner. 5. On these facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) has concluded that non-compliance by the lower Authority does not change the legal status of the condition and it should be presumed that the relevant condition stands modified since the date of their application i.e. 14.10.1998. On that basis, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has decided that the appellants were required to pay the in-bond warehouse charges on as is where basis (MOT) only after 14.10.1998 onwards and from the date of licence (01.10.1997) to 13.10.1998 on the basis of Cost Recovery. The appellants contention is that they should be given the benefit of supervision charges on M.O.T. basis for the period Septem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lhi- 2004 (174) E.L.T. 319 (Tri. Del) 5. Granada Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Noida 2006 (204) E.L.T. 99 (Tri. Del.)" 7. The Ld. AR. on the other hand submitted that the appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal for refund of Cost Recovery Charges and relied on the following case laws :- "1. CCE Vs. I.J. Muthu Foods Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (274) ELT 455 (Tri. Mumbai) 2. CCE Chandigarh Vs. Long Life Tools P.L. 2006 (199) ELT 849 (Tri-Del) 3. Kisan Sahkar Chinni Mills Ltd. Vs CCE Meerut-I 2009 (236) ELT 717 (Tri. Del). 4. Shree Pipes Ltd. Vs. UOI 1995 (79) ELT 405 (Raj) 5. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I.- 2015 (327) E.L.T. 257 (Tri. Del.)" 8. After hearing both the sides and examining the records, we find that under Sectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X