TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal dismisses appeal challenging waste oil importation charges, citing lack of jurisdiction</h1> <h3>M/s MP AGRO Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), JNCH, NHAVA SHEVA</h3> M/s MP AGRO Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), JNCH, NHAVA SHEVA - 2015 (316) E.L.T. 335 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved:Recovery of incineration charges for waste oil importation, stay of impugned demand under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, jurisdiction of the Tribunal in dealing with recovery of incineration charges.Analysis:The judgment revolves around a Misc. Application challenging a notice issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs regarding the recovery of incineration charges for waste oil imported in 39 containers. The charges amounting to Rs. 92,11,047 were imposed following the disposal of the goods through incineration as per the Supreme Court order. The appellant sought a stay of the demand under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appellant argued that the issue of whether the imported oil is hazardous is pending before the Tribunal, making the recovery premature. However, the Tribunal clarified that it previously granted a stay only for duty, interest, and penalty, not for incineration charges. Moreover, there is no provision under the Customs Act to stay the recovery of such charges, especially when imposed in accordance with the Apex Court order.The appellant's contention that the recovery of incineration charges is premature due to the pending decision on the hazardous nature of the imported oil was countered by the Revenue's representative. It was highlighted that the goods were tested by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board under the direction of the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee for Hazardous Wastes. The disposal through incineration and subsequent charges were in compliance with the Supreme Court order. The Revenue argued that the miscellaneous application challenging the charges is not maintainable before the Tribunal, as the charges were imposed as per the Apex Court's directives.In its ruling, the Tribunal emphasized that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the recovery of incineration charges, as the charges were sought to be recovered in accordance with the Apex Court order. The Tribunal clarified that while it had previously granted a stay for certain dues, there was no provision under the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules to stay the recovery of incineration charges. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application as not maintainable, concluding that it lacked the authority to intervene in the matter of recovering the incineration charges for the waste oil importation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
