9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 01.01.2002 and the earlier instructions of the State have stood modified to the said extent. Thus, the over-time supervision charges could not have been charged by the respondents. Therefore, the appellant was entitled for refund of the over-time supervision charges. The board s circular dated 24.04.2003 was required to be applied and the refund was to be granted to the appellant. Interest for the amount paid as supervision charges - HELD THAT:- Since the supervision charges were not to be charged by law, the appellant would be entitled for payment of interest on refund of the said amount. However, the earlier payment of the supervision charges has been made by a mistaken notion of law - the department cannot be held completely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould pay over-time supervision charges to the department. The appellant continued to deposit the said amount fixed by the range officer. 2. The earlier Central Excise Rules, 1944 stood superseded by the new Central Excise Rules, 2001 with effect from 01.09.2001. In pursuance to the new Rules, the Board issued supplementary instructions on 01.09.2001 and 01.01.2002 empowering the commissioner to permit the outside storage of sugar without payment of duty. In spite of the said circulars, the field officer continued to exercise unwarranted supervision and compelled the appellant to deposit the over-time supervision charges. By the board circular dated 23.04.2003, the position was clarified and the earlier circular dated 01.01.2002 was modif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A), (B) and (C). 4. Learned counsels appearing for both sides submit that the questions of law as framed at the time of admission are required to be re-framed. Hence, they have addressed arguments on the same. 5. We have heard learned counsels on the same. 6. On hearing learned counsels, the question of law is reframed. The appeal would be considered on the following substantial question of law: Whether the appellant is entitled for refund of the amount paid by it as supervision charges? 7. Shri S.K. Posti, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant s counsel, submits that the orders of the authorities are erroneous and are liable to be interfered with; the board circular dated 23.04.2003 clearly narrates that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The said circular reads as follows: Circular : 709 /25 / 2003-CX, dated 23-Apr-2003 Storage of goods outside factory premises Merchant overtime charges for physical supervision waived Circular No. 709/25/2003-CX., dated 23.4.2003 F. No. 261/12/2/2003-CXs Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise Customs, New Delhi Subject: Central Excise-Storage of goods outside factory premises-Waiver of Merchant overtime charges- Regarding. I am directed to refer to Board s Circular No. 610 / 1/2002 CX., dated 1-1-2002 [2002(13) E.L.T.T27] wherein the facility of storage of non-duty paid goods outside the factory premises which was available under erstwhile Rule 47 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002 does not envisage any physical supervision of such storage premises /godown by the Central Excise, the field formations are still collecting merchant overtime charges / charges on cost recovery basis as per earlier concept of physical supervision of godowns / storage places in terms of Board s Circular dated 14.04.1986. Therefore, the board s circular dated 01.01.2002 and the earlier instructions of the State have stood modified to the said extent. 11. On considering the same, it is quite clear that the over-time supervision charges could not have been charged by the respondents. Therefore, the appellant was entitled for refund of the over-time supervision charges. The board s circular dated 24.04.2003 was required to be applied and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
