2008 (5) TMI 105 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim for the establishment charges or cost recovery charges paid by the 100% EOU to the Revenue for availing the services of departmental officers - appellant s stand that they did not avail the services of the officers - authorities below on the basis of the report given by the Superintendent have shown that the register of receipt and issue of materials were maintained under the supervision of Central Excise Officer refund of cost recovery charges not admissible

Summary

Issues:
Refund of establishment charges paid by a 100% EOU for services of departmental officers.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU, paid establishment charges to the Revenue for utilizing departmental officers' services and subsequently sought a refund, which was denied by the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). The authorities cited Board's Circular No. 31/2003, offering 100% EOUs the option to use officers' services by paying cost recovery charges or merchant overtime. Since the appellant paid cost recovery charges, refund was deemed impermissible. The appellant, holding a warehousing license and executing a bond as per Regulation 4 of Manufacture and Other Operation in Warehouse Regulation 1966, argued against availing officers' services. However, authorities refuted this claim with the Superintendent's report and appellant's letter indicating material records were supervised by Central Excise Officer.

The judgment states that there is no merit in the appeal due to the dispute revolving around payment to Revenue officers, deemed administrative and not appealable. The rejection of the appeal was pronounced on 16-5-2008.