2008 (7) TMI 779 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Supervision charges - storing of the goods outside the godown - Rule 4(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Order - Appealable order

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim for excess payment of supervision charges
- Calculation of supervision charges based on actual attendance
- Maintainability of appeal against supervision charges

Refund Claim for Excess Payment of Supervision Charges:
The case involved the appellants, engaged in sugar manufacturing, seeking a refund for excess payment of supervision charges for storing non-duty paid goods outside the godown due to space constraints. The Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim. The appellants argued that supervision charges should be based on actual attendance by Central Excise officers at the time of clearance, not for the entire storage period. They cited relevant Tribunal decisions to support their claim.

Calculation of Supervision Charges Based on Actual Attendance:
The learned Advocate for the appellants contended that supervision charges should be calculated based on actual attendance by officers during goods clearance, not for the entire storage period. The Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously rejected the claim, requiring payment on a cost recovery basis for the entire storage duration. The appellant's argument was supported by Tribunal decisions, emphasizing the need for charges linked to actual supervision.

Maintainability of Appeal Against Supervision Charges:
The Revenue's representative argued that the appeal was not maintainable concerning supervision charges, citing a Rajasthan High Court decision followed by Tribunal rulings. The Tribunal analyzed the case under Rule 4(4) of the Central Excise Rules, allowing storage outside the premises under specific conditions. The Commissioner imposed supervision charges on a cost recovery basis, not as duty. Refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act were deemed inapplicable. Citing the Rajasthan High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the order on supervision charges fell under executive powers, not appealable under the Act. The appellants were advised to seek redress from the Commissioner or Administrative authority.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of the refund claim, supervision charges calculation, and the maintainability of the appeal, providing a detailed overview of the arguments presented and the Tribunal's decision.