9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of the Customs Act, 1962. The dispute in this case as to whether such MOT charges are payable by the assessee when services of officers for supervision of sealing of export consignments are used during office hours. The Department being of the view that even for such services during office hours, the MOT would be chargeable, initiated proceedings of recovery of the same which resulted in Order-in-Original dated 30-6-2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner by which the MOT charges of Rs. 33,920/- were demanded and penalty of Rs. 200/- was imposed. The appeal filed against this order of the Assistant Commissioner was dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Shree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and also emphasized that the ground on which the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) i.e. whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has jurisdiction to hear appeal on the dispute regarding MOT has not been challenged in the Memorandum of Appeal and hence this issue cannot be raised. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. There is no disagreement that the point of dispute in this case is as to whether for service of Customs, Excise Officers at the appellant factory for supervision of sealing of export consignments during working hours, MOT is chargeable under the Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by the Customs Officers) Regulations, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Bonded Warehouse. In the case of Shree Pipes Ltd., establishment cost of the staff was sought to be recovered by the Assistant Commissioner under executive power. In view of this, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the appeal for the lack of jurisdiction is not correct. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into the merit on this case, this matter has to be remanded and the same has to be decided on the basis of the judgment of Larger Bench Tribunal in case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) and of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Sigma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., (supra). As regard a plea of learned AR, that the issue of maintainability of the appeal has not been raised in their Memorandum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
