Pokarna Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 01-2010 dated 30/03/2010 passed by CC,CE&ST(Appeals-III), Hyderabad]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

POKARNA LTD SY.NO. 123, TOOPRANPET VILLAGE, CHOUTUPPAL MANDAL, NALGONDA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise,Customs And Service Tax HYDERABAD-III NULL OPP LB STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri T. Jagpathi Rao, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 08/07/2015

Date of Decision: 08/07/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21527 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant is required to pay Merchant Overtime (MOT) Charges to the Central Excise officers who have rendered services to the appellant supervising the stuffing of the export consignments. It is seen that the matter was being adjourned earlier to await the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rajkot Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. As per the Larger Bench decision reported in 2013(294) elt 403 (Tri. LB)], issue is no more res integra, having been decided by the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Sigma Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. [2013(294) ELT 649 (Del.)]. Accordingly the Larger Bench observed that the reference does not survive.

2. As per the decision of the Honble Delhi High Court in the above referred decision, MOT charges are not payable by the assessee when the stuffing work is done in the factory of the assessee during the office hours and when the appellants factory falls within the range of that office. Both the conditions are satisfied in the present case. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

Raja.

2