9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order dated 8th May, 2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the respondent to pay Merchant Overtime Tax Charges (in short referred to as „MOT charges‟) of Rs 3,37,900/- has been allowed and the demand raised has been set aside. 2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:- Respondent is manufacturer and exporter of auto parts under DEPB Scheme. The respondent had exported certain consignments of auto parts during September, 1997 to September, 2002. It is admitted that stuffing of goods in containers for the export was done in the factory of respondent under the supervision of Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction over the factory under section 36 of the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such, condition for levy of MOT charges was not satisfied and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 3. Aggrieved with the same, present appeal is filed. 4. At the time of admission of appeal, following question of law has been determined by this court:- "Whether the Central Excise Officer discharging his duties as a Customs Officer, in the factory premises of the assessee, could be said to be discharging such functions in a „Customs Area‟ as defined in Sub-Section 11 of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962?" 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the normal place of work of Central Excise Officer is his office only. It is submitted that vide para 1.2, Part II, Chapter 18 of CBEC‟s Excise Manual of Supplement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed 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 Indl. Area Ph.-II where the factory of respondent is located, the services were rendered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
