M/S. Complete Surveying Technology ... vs C.C.E. Noida

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 78/CE/Appl/Noida/2007 dated 30.07.2007 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Noida].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Complete Surveying Technology Pvt. Ltd. .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. Noida .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri R. Sudhinder, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 25.02.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 50481/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding establishment charges of Rs.13,19,539/-.

2. The facts of the case are that during the relevant period the appellant was working as 100% EOU. Initially staging of their Establishment Departmental Officers were posted on cost recovery basis. However, as per the Public Notice dated 10.06.1996 the appellant applied for removal of the officers posted in their premises and permission was granted to the appellant to that extent and it was allowed that appellant can operate under self Removal Procedure from 03.07.1998. Thereafter, a show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2005 was issued to the appellant to demand establishment charges for the period 01.04.1999 to 31.12.2004. The appellant replied to the Show Cause Notice stating that as per the permission granted when to operate under self Removal Procedure no officer of the department was posted in their premises. Therefore, establishment charges are not payable. Both the lower authorities confirmed the demand of establishment charges. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before me.

3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that it is the matter on record that after granting permission effective from 03.07.1998 no departmental officer was posted in their factory for supervision. In these circumstances establishment charges are not payable by the appellant. Accordingly impugned order is required to be set aside. To support his contention he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Granada Footwear Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (204) E.L.T. 99 (Tri-Del) and Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. 2005 (190) E.L.T. 415 (Tri-Del).

4. On the other hand Ld. AR submits that the appellant were having two units and they have been granted permission for their unit located at A-30 Sector-7, Noida and not for the unit located at D-139-141 Hosiery Complex Phase-II Extn Noida. Therefore, both the lower authorities have rightly directed the appellant to pay the establishment charges. In rejoinder to the argument advanced by the Ld. AR. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that after granting the permission under self removal procedure the EOU was shifted from A-30 Sector-7, Noida to D-139-141 Hosiery Complex Phase-II Extn Noida. Therefore, the appellant was located at only one site and not the two sites which was claimed by the Ld. AR. This fact has not been examined by the Adjudicating Authority while demanding establishment. But it is the fact on record that nobody was posted at appellants site.

5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

6. In this case the issue arises from the facts whether the appellant is liable to pay establishment charges for the posting of Departmental Officer in their unit when they were not posted at all or not. The issue has been answered by this Tribunal in the case of Granada Footwear Pvt. Ltd. and Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. (Supra) wherein this Tribunal held that when no officer has been posted in the unit of appellant no establishment charges is payable by the appellant. Therefore, following the precedent decisions of this Tribunal I hold that as no departmental officer was posted in the factory premises of appellant for supervision, establishment charges are not payable.

7. Consequently impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

E/2962/2007-EX(SM)