9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 478 - AT - CustomsMerchant Overtime Tax Charges (MOT) - Jurisdiction - Whether for service of Customs, Excise Officers at the appellant factory for supervision of sealing of export consignments during working hours, MOT is chargeable under the Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by the Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998 or not - Held that - The Merchant Overtime Regulation mentioned above have been framed by the Board under Sections 157 and 158 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the disputes regarding MOT have to be decided in terms of these regulations. In terms of the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) can be filed by any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer lower in rank than the Commissioner of Customs. Therefore, the decision of Assistant Commissioner on dispute relating to MOT chargeable under Customs Regulation has to be treated as a decision taken by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the Customs Act which would be challengeable before Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute regarding MOT in this case is different from the dispute as to whether the establishment cost of the officers for the whole year is recoverable for their deployment at Customs Bonded Warehouse. Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the appeal for the lack of jurisdiction is not correct. - Following decision of Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2013 (10) TMI 675 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - Matter remanded back.
Issues:
Dispute over whether Merchant Overtime (MOT) charges are payable for services of officers during office hours for supervision of sealing export consignments. Appeal dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals) based on a judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Challenge to the jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to hear appeals on MOT disputes. Analysis: The appellant availed services of Central Excise Officers for supervision of export consignments, with MOT charges recovered under Customs Regulations. The Department claimed MOT charges even for services during office hours, leading to an Order-in-Original demanding charges and imposing a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in a different context, stating no appeal lies against the Assistant Commissioner's order. The appellant challenged this decision. The appellant argued that the dispute was distinct from the case cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) and referenced judgments by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court supporting their stance. The Department defended the decision, emphasizing the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings and the challenge to jurisdiction not being raised initially. The Tribunal considered these arguments, noting the difference in disputes and the incorrect reliance on the cited judgment by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal highlighted that the Merchant Overtime Regulations were framed under the Customs Act, and disputes must be resolved within these regulations. It clarified the appeal process under the Customs Act, allowing challenges to decisions by lower-ranking officers. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal based on jurisdiction, as the dispute was distinct from the establishment cost issue in the cited case. The matter was remanded for a decision on merits based on relevant judgments by the Larger Bench Tribunal and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In summary, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the need for a decision on merits considering the applicable legal precedents. The jurisdictional challenge was deemed valid for consideration at this stage, and the case was remanded for further proceedings in light of relevant judgments by higher authorities.
|
