9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (4) TMI 486 - AT - Central ExciseExports - refund claim for Merchant overtime charges - HELD THAT - It is seen that the office of the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise Range is situated at Kota. The appellant factory is coming within the jurisdiction of the central excise Range Superintendent who supervises the work. The Tribunal in the case of Sigma Corporation (I) Ltd. 2004 (1) TMI 112 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI held that if the services of stuffing of goods in the container was rendered by the officers within his Range only i.e. within his normal place of work, no MOT charges is payable for stuffing of goods carried out during the working days only. Regarding contention of the learned D.R. that refund claim is not maintainable under Central Excise Act, I find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur-I v. M/s. Flair Filtration (P) Ltd. 2006 (11) TMI 393 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI held that any appeal or any dispute arising would be definitely covered under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, I set aside the impugned order and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
Issues:
Refund claim for Merchant Overtime (MOT) charges paid under protest for stuffing of containers at factory premises during normal working hours. Analysis: The case involves the appellants, engaged in manufacturing yarn, who paid MOT charges to central excise officers for stuffing containers at their factory premises. The appellants filed a refund claim for the MOT charges paid under protest during normal working hours from September 2001 to June 2003. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the refund claim, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. The advocate for the appellant argued that the central excise officers performed their duties within their jurisdiction and during normal working hours, making the MOT charges refundable. He cited precedents like Sigma Corporation (I) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi and C.C.E., Jaipur v. M/s. Flair Filtration (P) Ltd. to support the claim. The advocate highlighted that in a similar case, the demand for MOT charges was dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals). On the contrary, the Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the central excise officers performed duties beyond their normal place of work and beyond the customs area, justifying the payment of MOT charges under the Customs regulations. Referring to Board Circular No. 68/98-Cus., the Revenue argued that the officers rendered services beyond the customs area, making them liable to pay MOT charges. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the stuffing of goods took place within the jurisdiction of the Central Excise Range Officer, who supervised the work at the appellants' factory. Citing the decision in Sigma Corporation (I) Ltd., the Tribunal held that if the services were rendered within the officer's range during normal working hours, no MOT charges were payable. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions for levy of MOT charges were not met in this case, as the work was carried out within the officer's normal place of work. Regarding the contention that the refund claim was not maintainable under the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal referred to the case of CCE, Jaipur-I v. M/s. Flair Filtration (P) Ltd. and observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to hear and dispose of such appeals under the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.
|
