https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393350 CESTAT AHMEDABAD - AT allowed the appeal and set aside the demand for cost recovery charges. The tribunal held the appellant lawfully paid MOT charges because no separate Customs officer was posted at its private jetty; Rules 5(2) and 6(o) of HCCAR 2009 apply only where a separate officer is posted. The retrospective provision in Rule 4 cannot be relied on to create a retrospective liability for cost recovery when no posting occurred. In these facts the demand for cost recovery charges was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Oct 2025 16:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393350 CESTAT AHMEDABAD - AT allowed the appeal and set aside the demand for cost recovery charges. The tribunal held the appellant lawfully paid MOT charges because no separate Customs officer was posted at its private jetty; Rules 5(2) and 6(o) of HCCAR 2009 apply only where a separate officer is posted. The retrospective provision in Rule 4 cannot be relied on to create a retrospective liability for cost recovery when no posting occurred. In these facts the demand for cost recovery charges was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393350