2014 (12) TMI 76 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - merchant overtime charges (MOT Charges) for service provided by Central Excise Officers in the form of examination and sealing of containers in exporters factory premises - Held that - Issue does not fall in the category of cases mentioned in proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and hence revision application is filed beyond jurisdiction and not maintainable under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant is required to file appeal before Hon ble CESTAT - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of Central Government under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 for revision application filed by the applicant regarding refund of merchant overtime charges (MOT) paid for services provided by Central Excise officers.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision application filed by M/s. BSL Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting their refund claim of &8377; 57,560 for merchant overtime charges paid during Apr., 2010 to Sept., 2010. The applicants contended that they were exporting goods under Rule 18 and 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and were liable to pay MOT for services provided by Central Excise officers. The matter was adjudicated, and the refund claim was rejected based on Customs Regulations. The Respondent then appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected the appeal.

Subsequently, the applicant filed a revision application before the Central Government under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. During the personal hearing, the applicant's representative reiterated the grounds of the revision application. The Government noted that the issue involved the refund of MOT charges for services provided by Central Excise officers, which did not fall under the category of cases specified in the proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Government found that the revision application was beyond its jurisdiction and not maintainable under Section 35EE. The Government directed the applicant to file an appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT, ultimately dismissing the revision application as not maintainable.

In conclusion, the Central Government dismissed the revision application filed by the applicant, stating that the issue of refund of MOT charges for services provided by Central Excise officers did not fall under its jurisdiction as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant was advised to pursue the matter by filing an appeal before the appropriate authority, the Hon'ble CESTAT, as the revision application was deemed not maintainable.