Page 32 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

A124 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

18-5-2011. The appellant contended that the appellant had achieved the bench-
mark performance by February 2010 itself and therefore the demand of the Rev-
enue was not sustainable.
The Revenue sent another notice on 4-6-2012 demanding a sum of ` 1.33
crores for the period from March 2008 to March 2012. Against this the appellant
filed writ petition before the High Court. The High Court directed the appellant
to make detailed representation to the Department. In compliance with the High
Court order the Revenue passed the impugned order on 14-12-2012 and directed
to pay a sum of ` 1.18 crores. Against this order the appellant filed appeal before
the Tribunal.
The appellant submitted the following before the Tribunal -
• Prior to introduction of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regula-
tions, 2009 there was no rule for regulation except instruction of
Board prescribing rate and manner of recovery of cost recovery
charges a waiver thereof.
• Regulation 6(1)(o) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regula-
tions, 2009 deals with the same.
• Till date rates are not prescribed by the Ministry.
• In the absence of prescribed rate and manner the Revenue has no
authority to demand the cost recovery charges from the appellant.
• The appellant has achieved the benchmark performance within 2
years and there is no lapse on the part of the appellant but it is on
the part of the Revenue.
• The Revenue for the first time in September, 2010 raised the de-
mand of ` 36 lakhs and the appellant instantly paid the same.
• Thereafter the appellant claimed the waiver and the Revenue by one
letter after another letter increased the demand.
Therefore the appellant prayed the Tribunal to set aside the impugned
order passed by the Revenue.
The Revenue submitted the following before the Tribunal -
• The appellant was entitled for exemption from the charges only af-
ter the payment of cost recovery charges till the date of order grant-
ing exemption as the exemption is prospective.
• The appellant has made payment of charges during the period 2008
to 2010 in six instalments during the period September 2010 to July
2012.
• The appellant further failed to make advance payment of charges
asked to pay from the Revenue.
• Therefore the appellant is not entitled for exemption and the appli-
cant is liable to pay charges from the date of issue of the order
waiver.
The Tribunal heard the submissions put forth by both the parties. The
issues that are to be decided by the Tribunal are -
• Whether the appellant is entitled for exemption from payment of
cost recovery charges for March 2010 or not? and

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  32