9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant overtime (MOT) charges for stuffing of container to the central excise officers. Subsequently, the appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 2,39,374/- for MOT charges paid under protest for normal working hours during the period from September 2001 to June 2003. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 2. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the central excise officers performed their duties for stocking of goods within their jurisdiction. The central excise officers rendered their duties in normal working days and within working hours and, therefore, the payment of MOT charges is refundable. He relied upon the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al 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. (supra) 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. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below :- "It is not in dispute that the appellants are liable to pay MOT charges if the conditions for the levy exist. In the instant case, admittedly, the stuffing of goods had taken place in the appellants factor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur-I v. M/s. Flair Filtration (P) Ltd. vide final order dated 7-11-06 [2007 (209) E.L.T. 475 (Tribunal)] observed as under :- Considered the submissions made by both sides at length and perused the record. The submission of the learned DR that the appeal against order-in-original could not be entertained by the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) is without any basis. It is seen that the Regulation of Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers Regulations, 1998 was framed under the provisions of Section 157, 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 res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
