Cost recovery charges remain payable for an earlier period despite a later scheme switch request, sustaining the demand.

Cost recovery charges remained payable for the earlier operational period because the appellant had been covered by the original cost recovery arrangement during that time. A later request to shift to the Merchant Over Time Scheme, effective from a subsequent period, did not negate liability for short-paid charges already accruing under the earlier statutory scheme governing bonded warehouse operations and deployment of departmental staff. The confirmed demand was treated as sustainable on those facts, and the challenge to it failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was liable to pay the short-levied cost recovery charges for the relevant period and whether the demand confirmed by the appellate authority was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant's request to shift to the Merchant Over Time Scheme was made only for the period beginning 1.1.2010, whereas the dispute related to the earlier period from 2007 to 2009. For that earlier period, the appellant had itself been paying charges under the cost recovery scheme. On the facts, the amount found short-paid remained payable in full under the applicable statutory arrangement governing operations in bonded warehouse and deployment of departmental staff.

Conclusion: The demand towards short-paid cost recovery charges was rightly upheld and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the confirmed demand and declined to interfere with the appellate order, resulting in dismissal of the appellant's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability for cost recovery charges depends on the applicable operational period and the governing statutory scheme, and a later request to switch to a different scheme does not defeat liability for an earlier period already covered by the original arrangement.

---