Cost recovery charges under Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations cannot be recovered without proper statutory mechanism and government-specified rates

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that cost recovery charges under Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 cannot be recovered by the Commissioner due to lack of statutory mechanism and jurisdiction. The court found that Regulation 6(1)(o) requires rates and manner to be specified by Government of India/Ministry of Finance, which was not done. Relying on Punjab Haryana HC and Telangana HC precedents, the tribunal ruled cost recovery provisions ultra vires under Section 157 of Customs Act, 1962. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and revenue's recovery demand was rejected as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Authority of Adjudicating Authority
2. Validity of Cost Recovery Charges under HCCAR, 2009
3. Mechanism for Recovery of Cost Recovery Charges
4. Rate Specification by the Ministry
5. Revenue's Appeal on Dropped Demand

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Authority of Adjudicating Authority:
The appellant argued that the impugned order confirming the cost recovery charges was illegal as it was passed without jurisdiction and authority of law. The adjudicating authority confirmed the charges under Regulation 6(1)(o) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 (HCCAR, 2009), which does not provide a mechanism to recover or confirm such demands. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority lacked the statutory power to recover the charges, rendering the confirmation of the cost recovery charges without jurisdiction and authority of law.

2. Validity of Cost Recovery Charges under HCCAR, 2009:
The appellant contended that both Regulation 5(2) and Regulation 6(1)(o) of HCCAR, 2009, do not authorize the Commissioner of Customs to order the recovery of cost recovery charges. The Tribunal observed that while there is a condition for payment of cost recovery charges by the custodian, there is no statutory mechanism for the Commissioner to recover these charges. This was supported by previous judgments, including the case of Commissioner of Customs Ludhiana vs. Krishna Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., which held that in the absence of specified rates and manner by the Government of India, no recovery can be made.

3. Mechanism for Recovery of Cost Recovery Charges:
The Tribunal noted that the regulations only provide for the suspension or revocation of approval for non-compliance but do not include a provision for the recovery of unpaid cost recovery charges. This was corroborated by the Tribunal's previous decisions in cases such as Goodearth Maritime Limited and The Thar Dry Port vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur, which consistently held that the demand for cost recovery charges is not sustainable without a statutory mechanism for recovery.

4. Rate Specification by the Ministry:
The appellant argued that the Ministry had not prescribed any rate for cost recovery charges under the regulation. The Tribunal agreed, stating that Regulation 6(1)(o) requires the rates and manner of payment to be specified by the Government of India, which was not done in this case. This lack of specification further invalidated the demand for cost recovery charges.

5. Revenue's Appeal on Dropped Demand:
Regarding the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to drop the demand for cost recovery charges related to transport allowance and house rent allowance, as these amenities were provided by the assessee to the officers. The Tribunal found no error in the Principal Commissioner's decision not to confirm the demand for these charges.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order confirming the cost recovery charges due to the lack of jurisdiction and statutory mechanism for recovery. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the necessity of a clear statutory basis for any demand of charges and highlighted the limitations of the regulations under HCCAR, 2009.

---