9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht for appointment of an officer under the in-bond Manufacturing License. The petitioner is bound to pay the Cost Recovery Charges, even if the petitioner's company claims that no activity was commenced till 31.05.2002. The allocation of the officer to pay the Cost Recovery Charges for the officer allocated to the unit does not have any relation to the operational capacity of the petitioner's company. The petitioner's company is liable to pay the Cost Recovery Charges from the date of granting license and from the date on which, the officer was allocated to their unit to supervise the activities of the petitioner's unit. As the amount of Cost Recovery Charges demanded from the petitioner as the same as also incurred by the department towards the pay of allowance of one post of bond officer created for the service of the petitioner's unit as per their request it is also clear that it is not for the petitioner to dispense with the allocated bond officer when they do not require such services. This Court finds no infirmity in the orders passed by the second respondent and the second respondent order is a well reasoned one and there is no perversity as alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability of raw materials and machineries. 4. The Chief Account Officer of the Customs Department had issued a notice dated 13.12.2001 calling the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 2,41,231/- towards the Cost Recovery Charges. The petitioner's company has sent a reply dated 03.01.2002 and 06.05.2002 contending that due to non-operation of warehouse, the petitioner's company did not request the department to Post an Officer in charge of the said warehouse. 5. The petitioner has contended that they have effectively commenced operation only after 01.06.2002 and requested the respondent to withdraw the demand of Cost Recovery Charges. Thereafter, on 19.06.2002 the petitioner has paid a sum of ₹ 41,004/- towards the three months Cost Recovery charges from July, 2002 to March, 2003 in three installments for a total sum of ₹ 1,23,012/- vide Demand Draft No.126331 dated 19.06.2002 for ₹ 41,004/-; Demand Draft No.126580 dated 17.07.2002 for ₹ 41,004/-; and Demand Draft No.129579 dated 01.02.2003 for ₹ 41,004/- and also requested the second respondent to waive the Cost Recovery Charges up to 30.06.2002. However on 01.07.2002, the Chief Accounts Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tching Merchant Overtime fees, at request, the unit has not given an option to come out Cost Recovery Charges scheme up to 31.12.2004. The Merchant Overtime Charges was considered and allowed by the department only from 01.01.2005 it is mandatory on the part of the unit to remit the Cost Recovery Charges to the officer working as a bond officer as per the approval of ministry up to 31.12.2004. The bond officer already permitted against the Cost Recovery Charges will not revert back and still continue to function in the same post till the officer get promotion against the permanent vacancy in their wood cadre as per the ministry require. The amount of Cost Recovery Charges demanded their unit was already incurred by the department towards the pay and allowances for the one post of bond officer to create the service of unit holder as per the request or undertaking from this. It is clear where the service officer exclusively utilize by the unit or which is not possible to consider the request of the unit the petitioner to dispense with the post when they do not require such services, that is why the scheme of created post of Cost Recovery Charges advance was envisaged for the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Cost Recovery Charges which force the department to enforce the Bank guarantee for realization of the Cost Recovery Charges by transactions a copy to the Unit as far as the waiver for the initial period from July 2000 to May 2001 which is still under consideration. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the available materials on record. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner's unit was not function effectively till 31.05.2002 and was commenced their operation only after 01.06.2002. The Cost Recovery Charges impugned by the Customs Department towards the officer in charge of the bonded waiver house as to be waived as there was no effective operation in the unit till 31.05.2002. The respondents without passing an order for more than five years in a waiver petition the action of the respondents to invoke the bank guarantee is unreasonable. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity, despite the request for before passing an order in the waiver petition which is the impugned order herein and as such the principles of natural justice has not been followed by the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till 31.05.2002 and commenced their operation only after 01.06.2002. However, the said claim made by the petitioner cannot be a ground to seek waiver as such having sought for appointment of an officer under the in-bond Manufacturing License. The petitioner is bound to pay the Cost Recovery Charges, even if the petitioner's company claims that no activity was commenced till 31.05.2002. The allocation of the officer to pay the Cost Recovery Charges for the officer allocated to the unit does not have any relation to the operational capacity of the petitioner's company. The petitioner's company is liable to pay the Cost Recovery Charges from the date of granting license and from the date on which, the officer was allocated to their unit to supervise the activities of the petitioner's unit. 19. With regard to the orders passed by the second respondent that the impugned order herein has to be sustained, as the amount of Cost Recovery Charges demanded from the petitioner as the same as also incurred by the department towards the pay of allowance of one post of bond officer created for the service of the petitioner's unit as per their request it is also clear that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
