2008 (9) TMI 306 - AT - Central Excise

MOT Charges - It is permitted to export the goods at the factory premises under supervision of the Central Excise Officer on MOT basis. It has been alleged that they failed to discharge MOT charges. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand in respect of MOT short paid under Regulation 3 of Customs (Fees for rendering services by the Customs Officers) Regulation, 1998. He also imposed penalties under Section 158(2)(ii)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of Regulation 3 of the said Regulation, 1998 Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of demand of MOT charges Held that order was not appeal able before commissioner (appeals) hence order-in-appeal set aside original order of adjudicating authority upheld while setting aside the penalty.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against recovery of supervision charges before Commissioner (Appeals).

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the appeals arose from a common order regarding the export of final products with MOT charges. The respondents exported goods under supervision of the Central Excise Officer on MOT basis but allegedly failed to pay MOT charges. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for MOT charges and imposed penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the adjudication orders, leading the Revenue to file these appeals.

The learned Joint Commissioner of Customs submits that no appeal lies against the order for recovery of supervision charges before the Commissioner (Appeals), citing a decision by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and a Tribunal case. The Tribunal concurred with the submissions, referring to the Rajasthan High Court's decision and the Tribunal's previous ruling, stating that only orders passed under the Customs Act are appealable under Section 128. The issue of recovery of supervision charges, being related to bond conditions, is not appealable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding MOT charges recovery and modified the adjudication order by setting aside the penalty imposition under Section 117 of the Customs Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable against the recovery of MOT charges. The adjudication order was restored, and the penalty imposition was set aside. The respondents were granted the liberty to pursue remedies against the recovery of MOT charges before the appropriate authority in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized the non-appealability of orders related to supervision charges under the Customs Act, limiting the scope of appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) to specific provisions of the Act.