TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Regulations, 1998 - such charges are not leviable under the aforesaid Regulations for supervision during normal office working hours - appellants are entitled to refund of the MOT charges paid for supervision - E/713/2005 - 439/2008 - Dated:- 2-5-2008 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) Shri M. N. Bharathi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri J. P. Gregory, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason stated therein. This proposal was contested. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the refund claim. His decision was sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal filed by the party. The present appeal of the party is directed against the appellate Commissioner's order. 2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, I note that the lower authorities relied on the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. Ld. counsel has also relied on the decision in Rajasthan Textile Mills Vs Commissioner, 2007 (216) ELT 380 (Tri-Del.), wherein it was held that MOT charges were not payable for supervision of container-stuffing by Central Excise officers at normal place of work and within normal working hours. It was held to the same effect in the case of Commissioner Vs Flair Filtration (P) Ltd., 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
