2004 (96) ECC 465 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

New Delhi -- Bench-NB(S)

Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President

Kapoor International & Ors.

Versus

CCE, Faridabad

Appeal No. E/777-78/2004/NB(S)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 456-CE/Appl/Div-V/DLH-IV/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad]

Final Order No. A/1254-55/04/NB(S), dated 8.9.2004, Certified on 29.9.2004

Customs Act, 1962

Section 58 & 65 -- Customs Supervision charges -- Private bonded warehouse licence -- Contention of the appellant is that no supervision charge was required to be paid by them and, therefore, the demand is not sustainable -- Licence is for private bonded warehouse with manufacturing-in-bond facility, therefore, private bonded warehouse requires a regular and continuous supervision as the facility to manufacture-in-bond was also provided -- Demand made in pursuance of notification, hence justified.

[Para 3]

Appeal dismissed

PRESENT :

Shri R.C. Gupta, Adv. for the appellants.

Shri S. Bhatnagar, JDR for the respondent.

Per : S.S. Kang

The common issue involved in these appeals and therefore they are being taken up together.

2. The appellant is having a private bonded warehouse licence issued under Section 58 & 65 of the Customs Act 1962. As per the condition of the licence the appellant is required to pay customs supervision charges. As the appellant failed to pay the above-mentioned customs supervision charges, show-cause notices were issued for recovery of the same. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. On appeals filed by the appellant the same were dismissed.

3. The contention of the appellant is that during the period in dispute the appellant made export of sample consignment valued US $ 200 and no import was made. The contention is also that the custom supervision charges should be on actual basis, as the appellant had not made any request for supervision. Therefore, the demands are not sustainable. The contention of the Revenue is that the private bonded warehouse licence contains certain conditions and the appellant are bound by those conditions. Therefore, the demand is rightly made. The appellant applied licence for the licence for private bonded warehouse with manufacture-in-bonds facilities under Section 58 and 65 of Customs Act. As per the conditions in the licence the appellant to pay custom supervision charges in terms of Customs (fee for rendering services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1968. The demand is made in pursuance to this condition. The contention of the appellant is that no supervision charge was required to be paid by them and, therefore, the demand is not sustainable. I find that the licence is for private bonded warehouse with manufacturing-in-bond facility, therefore, this private bonded warehouse requires a regular and continuous supervision as the facility to manufacture-in-bond was also provided. As the demand is made in pursuance to the condition of the notification, which was granted on the request, made by the appellant, therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed.

………………………..