IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32183 of 2010(W)
1. M/S.FALCON INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS,
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
For Respondent :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/10/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 32183 of 2010 W
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a company which has established a
Container Freight Station. By virtue of Ext.P1, Container
Freight Stations, which have attained the bench mark
specified therein, are entitled to waiver of Cost Recovery
Charges.
2. According to the petitioner, they are eligible for
waiver as contemplated in Ext.P1. It is stated that, by Ext.P3
dated 21-04-2010, they have submitted their application to the
first respondent, requesting for the benefit of Ext.P1.
Petitioner submits that Ext.P3 application was recommended
by the third respondent, as per Ext.P6. It is stated that, their
application is still pending consideration of the first
respondent. It is complained that despite the
recommendation and the pendency of their application, by
Exts.P7 and P8, the fourth respondent has demanded that the
petitioner shall remit an amount of Rs.28,43,802/- towards
W.P.(C) No.32183/10
: 2 :
Cost Recovery Charges for the period from 01-04-2010 to 31-
12-2010. It is challenging Exts.P7 and P8, this writ petition is
filed.
3. I heard the senior Standing Counsel for the Central
Board of Excise and Customs, who pointed out that, even
going by Ext.P1 scheme, the benefit is only the prospective
and that since orders have not been passed on the
application so far, petitioner cannot avoid the liability.
4. However, it is a fact that the petitioner submitted
Ext.P3 application dated 21-04-2010, which is pending
consideration before the first respondent. Therefore, it is for
the first respondent to decide, the effective date from which
the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P1, if ultimately
the decision is to extend the benefit of Ext.P1 to the petitioner.
Having regard to the pendency of the application before the
first respondent, which is also duly recommended by the third
respondent, I feel that the matter needs an expeditious
consideration by the first respondent.
5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is
W.P.(C) No.32183/10
: 3 :
disposed of, directing that the first respondent, before whom
Ext.P3 is pending, shall consider the said application in the
light of Ext.P6 recommendation made by the third respondent.
Orders on Ext.P3 shall be passed, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a
copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition.
In the meanwhile, petitioner shall remit an amount of
Rs.8,95,526/- being the Cost Recovery Charges indicated to
be due for the period from 01-04-2010 to 30-06-2010 and
furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount indicated in
Ext.P8. The amount shall be remitted within one week from
today and the bank guarantee shall be furnished, at any rate,
within two weeks from today. Subject to the remittance of the
amount and furnishing of bank guarantee as above, further
proceedings for recovery pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8 will
stand stayed until orders are passed by the first respondent.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks