2015 (6) TMI 968 - AT - Customs

Demand of cost recovery charges - Held that - demand pertaining to cost recovery charges and the interest thereon as confirmed by the impugned order, the issue is prima facie covered in favour of the assessee/appellant by the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd. vs. C.B.E.& C., New Delhi reported in 2014 (2) TMI 702 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT . This judgment declared Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 2009 as devoid of legal substratum. Regulation 5(2) authorizes collection of costs and this is the basis of the impugned order confirming the demand and the interest thereon. - nonce the appellant shall be granted waiver of pre-deposit to the extent only of the demand pertaining to cost recovery charges and the interest thereon. Consequently, there shall be stay of all further proceedings for realization of the demand relating to recovery charges and the interest thereon as confirmed in the impugned order - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Additional grounds in the appeal
2. Demand relating to cost recovery charges
3. Imposition of penalty and suspension under HCCAR
4. Legal validity of Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 2009

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the application seeking to raise additional grounds in the appeal and stay of further proceedings for recovery of the assessed liability. The application for raising additional grounds is allowed, granting the appellant the opportunity to present new arguments in the case.

2. The impugned order confirmed a demand related to cost recovery charges along with interest, imposed a penalty, and ordered the suspension of the Custodian of Inland Container Depot. The issue of demand pertaining to cost recovery charges and interest is noted to be favorably covered for the appellant by a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which declared Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 2009 as lacking a legal basis. This regulation authorizes the collection of costs, forming the basis of the impugned order.

3. The Revenue highlights that a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had ordered interim suspension of a previous order related to the case. The appeal is pending consideration before the Division Bench. In light of these circumstances, the appellant is granted a waiver of pre-deposit only concerning the demand for cost recovery charges and interest. Consequently, all further proceedings for the realization of this demand are stayed as confirmed in the impugned order.

4. The judgment carefully considers the legal validity of Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations, 2009, emphasizing the High Court's ruling that this regulation lacks a legal substratum. This ruling plays a crucial role in determining the outcome of the appeal and the stay of proceedings regarding the demand for cost recovery charges and interest. The decision reflects a nuanced understanding of the legal framework and its implications on the case at hand.