TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....land Containers Depots (ICDs) in various places of Rajasthan. The three impugned orders considered in these appeals deal with the ICD managed by the appellant at Bhilwara, Jodhpur and Bhiwadi. The common issue in all these appeals is the appellant s liability to pay cost recovery charges for deployment of customs officers to attend to cargo clearance work in the ICDs for which the appellants were appointed by the customs authorities as custodian in terms of the provisions of Customs Act read with Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 (HCCAR, 2009). In two of the impugned orders the approval of custodianship granted to the appellant in respect of Bhiwadi and ICD Bhilwara has been suspended/ revoked. Penalties were imposed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e jurisdictional Customs authorities and the appellant and Commissioner being party to such contract cannot decide the case of appellant s liability for cost recovery etc. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. He drew out attention to the chronology of events as elaborated in the impugned orders to emphasise that the jurisdictional Officers were in regular correspondence with the appellant and escalated the issue to the Principal Secretary of the State Government in order to get the matter resolved regarding non-payment of cost recovery charges and also legal issue involving sub-letting of the custodianship work to third party. The appellants did not take timely action in fulfilling all the requirement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovided to the noticee vide letter C. No. VIII(H)10/9/Adj./2012/11029 dated 28.09.2012 and the noticee raised no dispute relating to quantification of the said amount of Cost Recovery Charges of Rs. 1,01,03,833/- and interest amount of Rs. 2,39,741/-. 25.4 I find that it is also not in dispute that the cost recovery charges are payable by the noticee in terms of condition (iii) of Public Notice No. 21/99 (Cus) dated 1.12.1999 for customs officials posted at ICD. In terms of Board s Circular No. 128/95 dated 14.12.1995 wherein procedure for appointment of custodian at ICD/CFS was prescribed also the custodian was required to pay cost recovery charges. I also find that in Para 3 of letter issued under F. No. 11018/07/96-Ad.IV dated 24.07.96....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hilwara was not be attributable to RSIC, if not attributable to the Customs Department. 25.6 In this context I find that the stay order dated 16.03.2010 granted by the Hon'ble High Court in the S. B. CWP No. 1540/2010 relates to a dispute between the noticee and Hasti Petro Chemical & Shipping Ltd. and the Customs department has nothing to do in that case. 25.7 Accordingly, I find that the cost recovery charges amounting to Rs. 1,01,03,833/- + interest is liable to be recovered from RAJSICO, under the provisions of regulation 5(2) read with regulation 6(1)(o) of the HCCAR, 2009. Similarly interest amounting to Rs. 2,39,741/- accrued on account of late payment of Cost Recovery charges is liable to be recovered from them under the provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrespondence between the department and the appellant on this issue and the original authority recorded that custodian cannot change the legal status in violation of the guidelines issued by the Board on 14.12.1995 and 25.07.2008. It is clearly recorded that on perusal of the proposed arrangement between the third party and the appellant, that if such agreement was approved it will amount to virtually handing over the ICD to the third party which will be in violation of the appointment of custodian with related conditions. For such proposed action, the appellant cannot blame the delay on the part of the Revenue, for ICD being non-functional or not requiring the already appointed officers of Customs to discharge the work. We find no justifi....