https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76840 The appellant, engaged in vessel manufacturing, disputed cost recovery charges claimed by customs officers for supervising their activities. The Assistant Commissioner demanded payment under the Customs Act, leading to a refund claim by the appellant. However, the appellate authority rejected the refund claim, citing a Supreme Court decision. The demand letters for cost recovery charges were considered quasi-judicial orders, and the failure to appeal against them within the stipulated time resulted in the rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the enforceability of demands over time and dismissing the appeal based on legal precedents. en-us Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76840 The appellant, engaged in vessel manufacturing, disputed cost recovery charges claimed by customs officers for supervising their activities. The Assistant Commissioner demanded payment under the Customs Act, leading to a refund claim by the appellant. However, the appellate authority rejected the refund claim, citing a Supreme Court decision. The demand letters for cost recovery charges were considered quasi-judicial orders, and the failure to appeal against them within the stipulated time resulted in the rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the enforceability of demands over time and dismissing the appeal based on legal precedents. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76840