2005 (1) TMI 436 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding establishment charges for Customs Private Bonded Licence for 100% EOU.
2. Dispute over payment of establishment charges due to the presence of a Sepoy in the bonded warehouse.
3. Rejection of refund claim by the Revenue for establishment charges paid by the appellant.

Issue 1:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the requirement for the appellant, a 100% EOU, to pay establishment charges for a Customs Private Bonded Licence. The appellant had to fulfill certain conditions, including paying for the establishment staff within two weeks of demand. The appellant executed a bond agreeing to the warehouse licence conditions. Subsequently, a demand for establishment charges was made, which the appellant paid. However, a refund claim for establishment charges related to the salary of a Sepoy, who the appellant claimed was not posted at their warehouse, was rejected.

Issue 2:
The Revenue contended that the establishment charges were rightfully paid as a Sepoy was indeed posted at the appellant's godown. The adjudicating authority found that an Inspector supervised the warehouse, and the Sepoy's services were utilized by the appellant, as extended by the Department. Since the appellant paid the establishment charges without protest, they could not now claim that no service was provided by the Department. The establishment charges were paid in compliance with the licensee's terms and conditions, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

Issue 3:
Given that the establishment charges were paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licensee, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it. The appellant's payment of the charges without objection, coupled with the utilization of the Sepoy's services, supported the decision to dismiss the refund claim for establishment charges. The Tribunal upheld the position that the appellant was liable to pay the cost of establishment as per the bonded warehouse licence terms and conditions, affirming the rejection of the refund claim.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved in the appeal and the Tribunal's reasoning behind rejecting the refund claim for establishment charges paid by the appellant.