Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
S.T.L. Exports Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(182)ELT165(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the appellants are 100% EOU and applied for Customs Private Bonded Licence and the same was granted on certain conditions. One of the condition was that the appellant required to pay for the establishment staff posted within two weeks of the demand made by the Range Supdt. The appellant also executed a bond binding themselves to the condition of the warehouse licence. In pursuance to the condition of the warehouse licence, the demand was raised in respect of the establishment charges. The appellant paid the amount thereafter filed a refund of the establishment charges collected by the Revenue on account of salary of Sepoy on the ground that no Sepoy was posted at their bonded warehouse, the refund was rejected.
2. The contention of the Revenue is that they had wrongly paid the establishment charges as Sepoy was posted in their godown.
3. I find that as per the terms and conditions of the bonded warehouse licence, the appellants were liable to pay cost of establishment. The adjudicating authority gave a finding that Inspector has been posted to supervise the warehouse and service of Sepoy has been invariably extended by the Department and fully utilised by the appellant.
4. As the appellant paid the establishment charges without any protest, therefore, now in the refund claim, the appellant cannot claim that no service is provided by the department. In these circumstance, as the establishment charges were paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licensee, therefore, I find no merit in the appeal, the same is rejected.