2006 (11) TMI 393 - AT - Central Excise

Jurisdiction - Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Demand of Merchant Overtime (MOT) charges - HELD THAT - It is seen that the Regulation of Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998 was framed under the provisions of Sections 157 and 158 of Customs Act, 1962. It would mean that any appeal or any dispute arising would be definitely covered under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal filed by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct and ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was within his powers to hear and dispose the said appeal. In view of Working hours has been also defined in Customs Regulation, I find that, the supervision was at Normal Place of work, but the fact regarding providing services - within normal working hours or beyond normal working hours is not clear. In this regard, I find that there is nothing on record to prove that the services were provided beyond the normal working hours (i.e. 9.30 to 18.00 Hrs.). In absence of which demand of MOT charges is not sustainable in terms of Para 3 of Chapter 13 of the Customs Manual of Supplementary instructions. I also find that the Appellants has deposited the MOT charges amounting to Rs. 3375/- in respect of services provided beyond Normal Working Hours. It can be noticed that the ld. Commissioner has correctly followed the law settled by the Tribunal in the case of Sigma Corporation (I) Ltd. 2004 (1) TMI 112 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI . Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The impugned order is liable to be upheld and I do so. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against setting aside of order-in-original regarding Merchant Overtime Charges (MOT) by Central Excise officers.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi was filed by the Revenue challenging the order-in-appeal that set aside the order-in-original demanding Merchant Overtime Charges (MOT) from the respondent. The case revolved around the fact that the appellants, manufacturers of filter elements, were exporting excisable goods stuffed in containers sealed by Central Excise officers in their factory premises. The audit revealed the liability to pay MOT charges, which the respondent disputed. The adjudicating authority confirmed the charges and imposed penalties, leading to the appeal.

The Revenue argued that the MOT charges were justified as the Central Excise officers worked beyond their duty hours. On the other hand, the respondent, represented by an advocate, relied on a precedent involving Sigma Corporation (I) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi to support their case. The respondent contended that the order-in-appeal was rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) following the Tribunal's precedent.

Upon considering the submissions and reviewing the record, the Tribunal analyzed the legal framework governing the appeal process. It noted that the Customs Act, 1962 provisions covered appeals and disputes related to customs matters, allowing the Commissioner (Appeals) to entertain and decide on such appeals. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal valid, rejecting the Revenue's argument to the contrary.

Regarding the merits of the case, the Tribunal referred to the Commissioner's findings based on the Customs Manual provisions and definitions related to MOT charges. It was established that the Customs work supervised by the Central Excise officer occurred within the normal place of work, and there was no evidence of services provided beyond normal working hours. As per the Customs Manual, the demand for MOT charges was deemed unsustainable without proof of services beyond prescribed working hours. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing adherence to the legal precedent set by the Tribunal in the Sigma Corporation (I) Ltd. case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the order-in-appeal setting aside the MOT charges and penalties demanded from the respondent. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal interpretations, precedents, and adherence to procedural regulations in customs matters, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.