9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant would not be liable to pay Merchant Overtime Charges for carrying out examination and supervision of loading of export goods at the factory premises of the manufacturer during the office hours on working day by the Central Excise Officers contrary to the instruction of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Appeal allowed - decided in favour of appellant. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Appearance: For the Appellant(s) No. 1: Mr. Paritosh Gupta With Mr Yash Modi For M/S Trivedi Gupta(949) For the Opponent(s) No. 1: Mr. Utkarsh R Sharma(6157) CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Paritosh Gupta with learned advocate Mr. Yash Modi for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the opponent. 2. This Tax Appeal is filed under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act, 1962 ) arising out of order dated 28.09.2007 in Appeal No. E/141/06 Appeal No. E/672/07 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ). 3. The Appeal was admitted vide order dated 22.09.2009 on the follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to demand and recovery of Merchant Over Time charges has not been considered ? h) Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in ignoring the provisions of Part-II of Chapter 18 of the CBEC Excise Manual as well as the clarification of the regulations as given under paragraph 3 of Chapter 13 of the CBEC Custom Manual? 4. The appellant is 100% EOU engaged in manufacture and export of excisable goods i.e. Plastic Bobbins, Tubes, Cones etc. which falls under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant imports Poly Carbonate, Fortron, Sticking Band ABS etc. The appellant holds licenses under sections 58 and 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act ) for private bonded warehouse. The appellant has also obtained the permission letter dated 24.03.2000 for manufacture and export of aforesaid goods under bond besides central excise registration. The appellant also was having permission for Self-Removal in place of Customs Bonding to carry out manufacturing activities without customs supervision since 1995 and for the said purpose, the appellant has its unit. 5. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the Tribunal had taken consistent view in similar matters that MOT charges would not be payable for examination and supervision of loading export goods undertaken by the Central Excise Range Officer at the factory premises of the manufacturers within normal working hours situated in their territorial jurisdiction. 9. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Sigma Corporation India Pvt. Ltd reported in 2013 (293) ELT 649 (Delhi) wherein the Hon ble Delhi High Court held that no MOT charges would be leviable when services rendered by the officers within his range only for supervision of stuffing work done in the factory of the assessee during the working hours as per section 36 of the Act, 1962 read with Regulations, 1998. 10. It was submitted that in case of CCE vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Garnet India Pvt. Ltd reported in 2017 346 ELT 243 (Mad) the Hon ble Madras High Court followed the decision of the Delhi High Court. 11. Reference was also made to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot vs. Reliance Industries Limited w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 7. The overtime fee is collected under section 36 of the Customs Act read with Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998 made thereunder. section 36 of the Customs Act allows loading/unloading of imported/export cargo from any vessel beyond working hours on any working day or on holiday only on payment of prescribed fees. The rate and the manner of collection of such fee is given in the aforesaid Regulations of 1998. 8. In the present case, 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. Learned counsel for the 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 Indi. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
