Supervision charges need actual posting of customs staff at the unit; demand fails where no officer was stationed.

Recovery of supervision or establishment charges for a warehouse or EOU requires evidence that customs personnel were actually posted or stationed at the unit to render the services for which the charges are claimed. Although the assessee accepted the underlying liability under the permission order and regulations, the demand was confined to a period when no officer or staff had in fact been posted. On that basis, the Tribunal held that such charges could not be levied for the entire period without proof of actual deployment, and the demand for supervision charges was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether supervision or establishment charges could be recovered from a warehouse or EOU when no customs officer or staff was actually posted or stationed at the unit.

Analysis: The assessee did not dispute the underlying liability to pay establishment charges under the permission order and the relevant regulations. The dispute was confined to the demand raised for the entire period despite the admitted position that no officer or staff had been posted at the unit. The Tribunal followed the principle that, while a unit may be liable to bear charges under the regulatory scheme, such charges cannot be levied in the absence of evidence that customs personnel were actually posted or stationed for rendering the services for which recovery is sought.

Conclusion: The demand for supervision charges was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned demand for supervision charges was annulled, with consequential relief as per law.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery of supervision or establishment charges requires evidence that customs officers or staff were actually posted or stationed for the unit; in the absence of such posting, the demand cannot be sustained.

---