9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to deposit the MOT charges instead of cost recovery charges for the period from 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010. Since the dispute in the present case is for the period from 2007 to 2009, when the appellant had paid ₹ 2,32,500/- for operating under the cost recovery scheme, it is evident that the charges are payable in entirety by the appellant, which ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant had been granted license for Private Bonded Warehouse with manufacture in bond facility under Section 58 and 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 and has excepted B-17 Bond along with bank guarantee before the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. During the course of audit in the factory of the appellant, it was observed by the Central Excise Officers that the appellant had short paid an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- vide the impugned order. Confirmation of the cost recovery charges in the impugned order is the subject matter of dispute before this Tribunal. 2. Sh. D.N. Chaturvedi, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant never opted to operate on payment of cost recovery charges; rather in the letter dated 15.12.2009 addressed to the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue is justified in confirming the said charges vide the impugned order. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 5. I find that the appellant vide its letter dated 15.12.2009 had requested the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to deposit the MOT charges instead of cost recovery charges for the period from 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
