9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenging the correctness of the order passed by the second respondent dated 16.04.2008, in and by which, the request for waiver of Cost Recovery Charges made by the appellant was rejected and the appellant was directed to remit the said charges for the period from 12.03.2001 to 31.12.2004 being a sum of Rs. 6,51,271/- and since the appellant had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,23,012, the balance amount of Rs. 5,28,259/- is to be recovered by enforcing two Bank Guarantees executed by the appellant. 3. The appellant was granted a Private Bonded Warehouse License dated 12.03.2001 under Section 58(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also an In-bond Manufacturing License under Section 65 of the Customs Act. At the time when the license was granted, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till a decision is taken on the representation. 5. Prior to the representation dated 21.02.2008, the second respondent had issued a letter dated 04.02.2008 informing the appellant's banker about enforcing the Bank Guarantee. The representation made by the appellant, which in fact is a request for waiver dated 21.02.2008, was not considered and since action was being initiated for encashment of Bank Guarantees by their notice dated 04.02.2008 issued by the second respondent, the appellant filed W.P.No.5504 of 2008 seeking to quash the said order and consider their representations dated 03.01.2002 and 20.02.2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 05.03.2008, directing the respondent to consider the appellant's exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents/Department. 8. As could be seen from the order passed by the second respondent dated 16.04.2008, impugned in the writ petition, there is a power vested with the Department to grant waiver of the Cost Recovery Charges. 9. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department would submit that this power is exercised by the officer subject to fulfillment of certain parameters. In this regard, the learned Senior Standing Counsel has referred to the relevant circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) dated 17.10.1997, 12.09.2005, 10.04.2013, 07.04.2015 and 03.11.2015. By referring to these circulars, it is submitted that the request for waiver needs to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant had specifically sought for an opportunity of personal hearing. It is not the case of the Department that there is no necessity for affording an opportunity of personal hearing. In fact in taxing statutes, when decisions are taken, an opportunity of personal hearing could go a long way to resolve very complicated issues, apart from giving satisfaction to the assessee that all materials, which are available with them, were placed for consideration before the adjudicating authority. One more fact which is to be noted is that the request made by the appellant was kept pending for several years and only after an order was passed in the earlier writ petition on 05.03.2008, the second respondent Department had passed an order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
