Central Warehousing Corpn. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Prev.)

Central Warehousing Corpn. vs Commr. of Cus. (Prev.)

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 19, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28428

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/28428
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, J T J.H.
Decided On: Jun 19, 2002
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Central Warehousing Corpn.

Respondent

Commr. of Cus. (Prev.)

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(145)ELT495Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....notice and on payment of the prescribed fees, if any : provided that no fees shall be levied for the unloading and loading of baggage accompanying a passenger or a member of the crew, and mail bags.6. apart from this provision, there is no other provision whereby the customs staff is to be separately compensated by an importer or an exporter or a warehouse keeper. shri jain representing the appellants, also fairly concedes that there is no other provision in the customs act making for recovery of the salary of customs officers. in that situation, we hold that the disputed amount could not be termed as, "sum payable" in terms of section 142(1) of the act.7. shri jain draws our attention once again to the preamble of the order as well as the clearance given by the committee of secretaries to the present appellants to persue this appeal in the cegat. we find that the bond filed by the appellants in terms of the public notice mention above, is not in terms of any of the bonds specified under the provisions of the act such as section 143 thereof. in this situation, we hold that the impugned order is an administrative order, and not one falling under the ambit of section 129a(1) of the act.

Full Judgment

1. On hearing both sides on the application for stay of operation of the impugned order, we find that the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. We do so.

2. The appellants were maintaining and operating an Inland Container Depot at Kapodara, Surat. Customs Public Notice No. 11/96, dated 18-3-96 contained the following provisions - "(a) Custodian shall bear the cost of the Customs staff posted for ICD/ CFS/EP7. The Commissioner of Customs shall decide the number of staff which is required to be posted in the facility considering the workload in the station." 3. In terms of this provision the appellants were to bear cost of the Customs Staff posted for the CSF.4. Show cause notice, dated 6-12-99 alleged that in spite of numer ous communications M/s. CWC failed to paid such costs to the Qustoms. It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 49,77,579/- so outstanding, was recoverable in terms of Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest on the out standing amount @ 20%. Before the Commissioner, the CWC maintained that they had paid Rs. 22,95,499/-. According to them the cost had been over cal culated on a number of grounds. They also claimed that they were pperating at a loss. The Commissioner did not accept any of the grounds but confirmed the outstanding amount, directing adjustment of the amount already paid. He in the preamble advised CWC that against that order an appeal could be filed against the order before the CEGAT. Hence, the appeal.

Restriction on unloadipg and loading of goods on holidays, etc. - No imported goods shall be unloaded from, and no export goods shall be loaded on, any conveyance on any Sunday or on any holiday observed by the Customs Department or on any other day after the working hours, except after giving the prescribed notice and on payment of the prescribed fees, if any : Provided that no fees shall be levied for the unloading and loading of baggage accompanying a passenger or a member of the crew, and mail bags.

6. Apart from this provision, there is no other provision whereby the Customs staff is to be separately compensated by an importer or an exporter or a warehouse keeper. Shri Jain representing the appellants, also fairly concedes that there is no other provision in the Customs Act making for recovery of the salary of Customs Officers. In that situation, we hold that the disputed amount could not be termed as, "sum payable" in terms of Section 142(1) of the Act.

7. Shri Jain draws our attention once again to the preamble of the order as well as the clearance given by the Committee of Secretaries to the present appellants to persue this appeal in the CEGAT. We find that the bond filed by the appellants in terms of the Public Notice mention above, is not in terms of any of the bonds specified under the provisions of the Act such as Section 143 thereof. In this situation, we hold that the impugned order is an Administrative order, and not one falling under the ambit of Section 129A(1) of the Act.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Central Warehousing Corpn. vs Commr. of Cus. (Prev.) Same Subject Customs Same Judge J Balasundaram, J T J.H.