2007 (6) TMI 388 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the availing of Chapter X procedure for receiving goods without payment of Special Excise Duty, the dispute over supervision charges imposed by the revenue on the respondents, and the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal.

Chapter X Procedure and Supervision Charges:
The respondents availed the Chapter X procedure for receiving tyres and tubes without paying Special Excise Duty. The revenue sought to collect supervision charges from the respondents for the movement of goods under this procedure. The Range Officer issued letters for recovery of the amount, leading to an appeal by the respondents against the recovery order.

Contradiction in Impugned Order:
The Ld. SDR contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) contradicted himself in the order and should have remanded the matter for formal adjudication. He argued that the issue requires reconsideration by the lower authorities and a formal adjudication order.

Applicability of Circular and Decision:
The authorized representative of the respondent cited Board Circular No. 209/20/71-CX.6, stating that the L-6 license held by the respondents for procuring materials under Chapter X procedure aligns with the premises for which the L-4 license is granted. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the respondent's position, emphasizing that no supervision charges were recoverable as the L-6 premises were within the L-4 premises.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the respondents followed the Chapter X procedure with the necessary permissions and certificates. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was supported by the CBEC Circular, which clarified the non-recoverability of supervision charges in this scenario. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed well-reasoned, leading to the rejection of the revenue's appeal and the disposal of the respondent's cross-objection in favor of the impugned order.