Case law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 22 Jul 2024

Central Warehousing Corporation vs Ahmedabad

Legal principle

In the absence of a statutory recovery mechanism and rates and manner specified by the Government of India, cost recovery charges cannot be recovered from a CFS/custodian even under Regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009.

Court decision

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appellant's (assessee's) appeal, holding the demand of cost recovery charges unsustainable; it also endorsed the Commissioner's dropping of the HRA and Transport Allowance component, and (as per the reproduced Diamond and Gem order) dismissed the Revenue's appeal on that point.

Facts

Central Warehousing Corporation, operator of a Container Freight Station (custodian) at Ahmedabad, was called upon by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad (Order-in-Original dated 21.02.2020) to pay cost recovery charges for Customs officers posted at its customs area under Regulation 5(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. The Revenue sought recovery of the cost of officers deputed at the CFS from the custodian, while the adjudicating Commissioner had declined to confirm the demand to the extent of House Rent Allowance and Transport Allowance since the assessee provided accommodation and transport to the officers. CWC appealed to the CESTAT, Ahmedabad against the confirmed cost recovery demand. The dispute concerned monetary recovery from the custodian rather than any confiscated or assessed goods.

Key provisions