9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt - this Court does not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner that they are not liable to make any payment to the Customs Department towards establishment charges - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 19116 of 2003, W.P.M.P. No. 23908 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2017 - P. N. Prakash, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. A. Sayed Shuhaibb For the Respondents : Mr. S. Rajasekar Senior Panel Counsel for Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Department ORDER The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the notice issued by the third respondent/Chief Accounts Officer, Custom House, Chennai, dated 27.06.2003, whereby, the petitioner has been demanded to pay a sum of ₹ 2,04,350/- toward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... afore mentioned licence, dated 17.10.2002, the petitioner was required to execute a bond in terms of Warehouse Regulation 1996 and condition No.6 of the bond states as follows:- The unit shall also pay the establishment charges, i.e., pay and allowances (if any) and other supervision charges of the staff members that may be posted or deputed to the unit and the establishment charges are to be paid in advance for three months at a time and the same shall be paid within one week after receiving the notice of payment from the Assistant Commissioner's Office 4. The petitioner accepted the said condition, and carried on his business activities under the supervision of the Customs Authorities. The petitioner was called upon to pay t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nger warranted. The jurisdictional Commissioner shall however, impose any other condition which he deems fit for the safeguard of revenue before granting permission for storage of non-duty paid excisable goods outside factory premises of the assessee. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that the Customs Department cannot claim any such charges, because, they do not have any establishment or Office in the Unit of the petitioner. 8. Refuting the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondent/Customs Department has drawn this Court's attention to the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, dated 27.01.2004, wherein, in para No.7, it is st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 546/- M/s.,Saky systems have paid a part amount of ₹ 1,30,196 in two installments, towards cost recovery charges. They failed to pay the balance amount in time and hence, the Department issued a demand notice, dated 27.06.2003 asking them to pay the due amount of ₹ 2,04,350/-. Hence, the demand notice, dated 27.06.2003 issued by the Department is legally correct and sustainable. 9. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. The petitioner was given a Private Bonded Wareouse Licence, dated 17.10.2002, with a condition that they should pay the establishment charges, i.e., pay and allowances, if any, and other supervision charges of the staff members of the Customs Department. Subject to the said provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
