Final Order Nos. 1207-1210/2008-Sm(Br)/(Pb), arising from Appeal Nos. E/2345-2348/2006-SM. Case: Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut-I. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
|Case Number:||Final Order Nos. 1207-1210/2008-Sm(Br)/(Pb), arising from Appeal Nos. E/2345-2348/2006-SM|
|Party Name:||Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut-I|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Shri V. Kackaria, Advocate, and For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rastogi, DR.|
|Judges:||Shri P.K. Das, Member (J)|
|Issue:||Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11B|
|Citation:||2009 (236) ELT 717 (Tri - Del)|
|Judgement Date:||July 17, 2008|
|Court:||CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)|
(Principal Bench, New Delhi)
All the appeals are arising out a common order and therefore, these are being taken up together for disposal.
The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. The appellants obtained permission from the Commissioner for storing the non-duty paid goods outside the godown for shortage of space. The appellants were permitted to store the goods subject to payment of supervision charges on cost recovery basis for the storage of non-duty paid goods outside the godown. They filed refund claim for excess payment of supervision charges. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that the supervision charges should be calculated on the basis of actual attendance by the Central Excise officers at the time of clearance of goods and not for the entire period of goods outside the godown. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim erroneously on the basis that the appellants would deposit supervision charges on cost recovery basis for the entire storage period. He relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal:-
(a) CCE, Aurngabad v. Bajaj Auto Ltd., 2007 (217) ELT 210 (Tri.-Mum)
(b) Rajasthan Textile Mills v. CCE, Jaipur-I, 2007 (216) ELT 380 (Tri.-Del.)
(c) Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, 2005 (190) ELT 415 (Tri.-Del.).
The learned DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the appeal is not maintainable against the supervision charges. He relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shree Pipes Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1995 (79) ELT 405 (Raj.) which has been followed by the Tribunal in the following decisions:-
(a) D.P. Exports v. CCE, Noida 2005 (188) ELT 503 (Tri.-Del.)
(b) CCE, Chandigarh v. Long Life Tools (P) Ltd. 2006 (199) ELT 849 (Tri.-Del.).
After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the appellants applied for storing of the goods outside the godown under the provisions of Rule 4(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that duty payable on...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL