9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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? 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/revenue would submit that admittedly, the respondent herein is willing to pay the supervision charges on the basis of the Merchant Over Time (in short 'MOT') charges and also exercised the option dated 28.06.2003 to avail the services of the Central Excise Officers on payment of said charge, in terms of the Board's Circular dated 07.04.2003 and therefore, it is not open to resile from the terms and conditions of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impermissible and therefore, held that the issue for consideration by the Larger Bench does not survive and rejected the reference and would further contend that in the light of the judgments rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court, the appeal deserves dismissal and therefore, prays for appropriate orders. 4. This Court paid it's best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 5. The original authority as well as the appellate authority has held that in view of the Board's Circular dated 07.04.2003, the Export-Oriented Units have to pay MOT charges even for Customs/Central Excise-related works even during office working hours and as such, the respondent had also exercised his optio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002, as amended by Notification No.22/2002 - C.E.(N.T.) dated 04.06.2002, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and concluded as stated supra. 9. The said decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi has not been put to challenge and therefore, it has become final. 10. Though the issue was referred to a Larger Bench of the CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, taking into consideration the above cited judgment, the Tribunal held that the issue referred for consideration does not survive and also rejected the reference vide judgment in Central Excise, Rajkot v. Reliance Industries Ltd., reported in 2013 (294) E.L.T. 403 (Tribunal - Larger Bench). 11. Thus, in the light of the above cited judgment rendered by the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
