9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 625 - HC - CustomsMerchant Overtime Fee (MOT) - Legality of directive contained in the circular dated 07.04.2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs - ultra vires the Regulation 3 of the Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998 - Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in concluding that the Circular No.31/2003, dated 7.4.2003 is not enforceable in law as it is ultra vires Regulation (3) of the Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998? - Held that - the issue also arose for consideration before the High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Sigma Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (4) TMI 649 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that It is an admitted position that stuffing work was done in the factory of respondent under the supervision of jurisdictional Central Range Officer during working hours only. The place of working/supervision was at the factory of the respondent which is at Mayapuri. Respondent has pointed out that as per Notification No.14/2002-CE(NT) dated 08.03.2002 as amended by Notification No.22/2002-CE(NT) dated 04.06.2002, the jurisdiction of Delhi II, Range 26 of Central Excise division-V includes Mayapuri Indl. Area Ph.-II where the factory of respondent is located, the services were rendered by the officer within his range only. The same fell within the jurisdiction of the Central Excise Range Officer who supervised the work. Chapter 13 of the CBEC s Customs Manual deals with Merchant Overtime Fee wherein it is provided that if services are rendered by the Customs Officer at a place which is not his normal place of work or a place beyond the Customs area, overtime is levied even during the normal working hours - the substantial question of law is answered in negative against the appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to the enforceability of a circular by the Commissioner of Central Excise based on Regulation 3 of Customs Regulations, 1998. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the MADRAS HIGH COURT involved a challenge by the Commissioner of Central Excise against an order of CESTAT, South Zone, Chennai. The appeal raised the substantial question of law regarding the enforceability of Circular No.31/2003 dated 07.04.2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The contention was that the circular was ultra vires Regulation 3 of the Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998. The appellant argued that the respondent had agreed to pay supervision charges based on Merchant Over Time charges as per the circular, and therefore could not deviate from the terms. Reference was made to a judgment in Naval Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad to support this stance. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel referred to conflicting views expressed in different judgments, including Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Reliance Industries Ltd., and highlighted a decision by the High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Sigma Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. The respondent contended that the services provided during normal working hours by Excise Officers were impermissible under the circular. The counsel prayed for the dismissal of the appeal based on Supreme Court judgments and the Delhi High Court decision. The Court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the available records. It noted that the original and appellate authorities had upheld the requirement for Export-Oriented Units to pay MOT charges for Customs/Central Excise-related works during office hours, based on the Board's circular. The respondent had also exercised the option in line with the circular. The Court observed that the CESTAT, South Zone, Chennai had allowed the appeal by holding that the circular was not enforceable as it contravened Regulation 3 of the Customs Regulations, 1998, citing precedents like Sandur Laminates Ltd. v. Commissioner and Rajasthan Textile Mills v. Commissioner. The Court referred to a similar issue considered by the High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Sigma Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. and the substantial question of law framed therein. It noted that the High Court of Delhi's decision had become final and unchallenged. The Tribunal's decision to reject a reference to a Larger Bench in Central Excise, Rajkot v. Reliance Industries Ltd. was also mentioned, reinforcing the position taken by the High Court of Delhi. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, affirming the order of CESTAT, Chennai, and ruled against the appellant based on the judgments and precedents discussed. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.
|
