9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002-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. Thus none of the conditions for levy of MOT is satisfied. - CEAC 11/2004 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2013 - Badar Dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Central Excise issued a letter directing the respondent to pay MOT charges of over Rs 7 lakhs covering the aforesaid period. The said demand was challenged by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals) by contending that for services rendered by Customs Officer, no MOT charges were payable. It was contended that under section 36 of the Customs Act, fee, if any, is payable only when the services for supervision are availed after working hours. It was contended that same was not the position in the present case, as such, no fee in the present case was payable. However, the Commissioner (Appeal) reduced the charges to Rs 3,37,900/- by observing that calculation of the MOT fee had been made on the basis of AR4/ARE1 register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is contended that in the present case the stuffing was done in the factory of respondent by the Central Excise Officer, as such, the Central Excise Officer works as a Customs Officer also. It is submitted that such a facility has been extended to avoid hassles of examination and stuffing of cargo at port. It is contended that in the present case, the Central Excise Officer has discharged his duty in the factory premises of respondent, the Central Excise Officer has functioned as a Customs Officer , as such, MOT is leviable. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Central Excise Officer in his capacity as a Custom Officer has rendered the services of stuffing of goods in containers within his ran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
