PML INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel says that when services of Customs officers was availed by EOU appellant, certain cost towards such service was charged from it. Appellant was earlier governed by cost recovery system. When it came to know about Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "1998 Regulation") issued under Section 157 of Customs Act, 1962 came into force, it made an application on 28 -8 -2003 indicating its option to be governed by such 1998 Regulation instead of cost recovery system. According to amendment, its switchover to the new scheme ought to have been entertained by learned authority for discharge of liability in terms of the schedule under Regulation 3 thereof. But ld. Authority following Board's Circular No. , dated 7 -4 -2003 came to the conclusion that the appellant should have made application to opt out from earlier scheme by 30 -6 -2003 while such date line was not prescribed by the 1998 Regulations.

(2.) REVENUE supports the appellate order. Both sides were heard thoroughly and from the facts on record, it comes out that appellant's case is not governed by Section 36 of Customs Act, 1962. This section reads as under:

(3.) MOST appropriately services of Customs Officers availed by the appellant is governed by Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998 issued in exercise of power under Section 157 of Customs Act, 1962. When the case of the appellant is out of scope of Section 36 of Customs Act, 1962, it cannot be insisted to be governed so. Accordingly appellant is directed to make deposit MOT charges as per schedule prescribed by Regulation 3 of 1998 Regulations and such amount if not deposited, shall be deposited forthwith. Appeal is allowed accordingly.