9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 9-7-2013 - Mr. Sahab Singh, J. For the Appellant: Shri P.K. Sharma, D.R. For the Respondent: Shri Shankey Agarwal, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per Sahab Singh: These two appeals are filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad against the Order-in-Appeal No. 42-CE/ALLD/2007 dated 20.3.2007 and 93-CE/ALLD/2007 dated 25.4.2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Recron Synthetics Ltd. (Respondents) are manufacturers of partially oriented yarn of polyester, polyester draw twisted yarn, polyester textured and tex dyed yarn, polyester twisted yarn falling under Chapter 54 of Central Excise Tariff and they are also manufacturing the goods falling under Chapter 39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two Show Cause Notices dated 16.10.2006 and 24.10.2006 were issued to the respondents for the period 3.11.2005 to 15.1.2006 demanding MOT fees for Rs.8555/and Rs.9040/respectively for supervision of stuffing during working hours, beyond working hours and on holidays. The respondents paid Rs.7,230/against the notices but did not pay the MOT fees for the supervision carried out during working hours on the ground that their factory was covered under the definition of Customs Area. These two Show Cause Notices were also adjudicated against the respondents vide Order-in-Original dated 12.3.2007 which was challenged by the respondents before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order No. 93-CE/ALLD/2007 dated 25.4.2007 allowed their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has upheld the Tribunal s order holding that there is no case for payment of MOT charges to Central Excise Officers while discharging duties in Custom Area as defined in subsection 11 of Section 2 of the Section. Hon ble Delhi High Court had upheld the finding of the Tribunal s order relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned orders. He also challenges the ground of appeal about non-maintainability of appeal since the penalty has been imposed on the respondents under the provisions of the Customs Act. 5. After hearing both the sides, I find that the issue involved in the present appeal is whether MOT fees are required to be paid to the Central Excise officers for performing supervision of stuffing of containers within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
