9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2009-Cus (N.T.) dated 17.03.2009 for notifying the HCCAR, 2009, were required to pay the cost of the officers posted there by the Commissioner of Customs on cost recovery charges unless specifically exempted by an order of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Circular No. 13/2009-CUS dated 23.03.2009 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance Government of India, in clear terms clarifies that payment of cost recovery charges in respect of ports and airport has been exempted for three categories of custodians specified in Circular No. 27/2004- Cus. dated 06.04.2004 - thus, government has exempted the Custodians notified before 26.06.2002 from the payment of cost recovery charges .Therefore, the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/2016 JMN-CUSTM-000-APP-240-243-15-16 dated 14.03.2016 M/s Shakti Clearing Agency C/11332/2016 JMN-CUSTM-000-APP-240-243-15-16 dated 14.03.2016 M/s Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. C/11331/2016 JMN-CUSTM-000-APP-240-243-15-16 dated 14.03.2016 M/s JM Baxi Co. 1.2 Brief facts of the case are that all the above four respondents applied separately for specific Jetties as Landing Place under section 8(a) of Customs Act, 1962. The said places were declared as Landing Place under Section 8 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 vide different Notification and all four respondents were appointed as custodians un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als of revenue and upheld the Order-In- Original. Hence, the present appeals by the revenue before us. 2. Shri G.Kirupanandan, Learned Superintendent Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue Department, justified the order of the review authority and submits that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order without appreciating the facts of the case and without understanding the issue involved in the case. The adjudicating authority failed to understand the clarification issued by the Board vide Circular No. 27/2004-Cus dated 06.04.2004. In the present matter all the four respondents were appointed as Custodian by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. From the Circular No. 27/2004- Cus dated 06.04.2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Customs, Jamnagar was prospective in nature and no way it can be given retrospective effect. 2.2 Further he submits that the as per Para 5 (b) and 5(C) of Circular No. 16/2013-Customs dated 10.04.2013, exemption from cost recovery charges shall be prospective and no cost recovery charges should be outstanding. Therefore, the waiver granted by the Commissioner, Customs, Jamnagar was prospective in nature. Also cost recovery charges were outstanding against the respondents. That it is on records that the show cause notices were issued to the said respondents for the period from 2010-11 to May, 2014 whereas the waiver of establishment charges was granted only with effect from May 2014. Thus, the Appellate Authority erred in dropping the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the exempted categories or not., we also gone through the contents of Circular No. 27/2004 and observed that three exempted categories are: i. Custodians notified under Section 45 of Customs Act, prior to 26.06.2002 and no change in custodianship or area after 26.06.2002. ii. Custodians notified prior to 26.6.2002 but part of whole of the same premises transferred (on lease or otherwise) to new custodian on or after 26.06.2002 iii. Custodians notified prior to 26.02.2002 but premises extended after 26.06.2020 under the same custodianship. 4.2 We also perused the individual Notifications under which all the four Respondents were appointed as custodians and we find that all the four were notified as Custodians well before 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
