9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Customs. Vide impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs held that the appellants are liable to pay supervision charges in respect of in-bond manufacturing facility. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit established under letter of permission dated 27-3-2000. On 30-3-2000, the appellants were allowed to manufacture other parts in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees for Rendering Services by Customs Officer) Regulation, 1998 and also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shree Pipes Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 405, the Hon'ble High Court held that fee/cost recovery/cost of establishment payable to the Revenue only on hourly basis and not for whole year when no wholetime staff posted by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per permission letter whereby the manufacturer and other parts were permitted in the warehouse, the appellant is liable to pay the establishment charges and the Commissioner in the impugned order specifically mentioned that the work of monitoring and supervising the operations of the unit was assigned to the Range officer, therefore, the demand is rightly made. 7. In this case, the establishment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was followed in the case of Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. (supra) held that no doubt the assessee is liable to pay the charges as per the conditions of the bond but in absence of any evidence that any such officer or staff was ever posted or stationed at the appellants warehouse the assessee cannot be burdened for such charges. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal and Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
