Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sarla Polyester Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Sarla Polyester Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 19, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40292

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/40292
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S.
Decided On: Sep 19, 2005
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Labour and Industrial

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Sarla Polyester Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(194)ELT416Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

2. the issue that the respondent had filed a refund claim of rs. 2,86,400/- paid as supervising charges for the officers required at 100% eou during the period july, 1998 to september, 2000. a show cause notice was issued on 22.10.2001 as regards the refund claim on the ground that the charges were paid by the assessee on their own wishes and at the time of payment no protest was lodged at per central excise act, 1944 and the rules framed thereunder and there were no provisions under the said act to refund such supervision charges. it was also alleged in the notice that the party had included the amount of supervision charges in the assessable value of the goods and whereby passed the incidence to their buyers.3. the commissioner of central excise (appeals), relying upon the decision of the rajasthan high court in shri pipe ltd. v. union of india 1995 (79) elt 05 (raj), set aside the order of the lower authority.4. the provisions of the central excise act, 1944 especially section 35b did not provide for entertaining an appeal against administrative expenses, supervision charges, mercantile overtime fees etc collected from as assessee by the department, to provide services of an officer.the present appeal therefore, though an order passed by commissioner of central excise (appeals) under section 35a, cannot be entertained by this tribunal

Full Judgment

2. The issue that the respondent had filed a refund claim of Rs. 2,86,400/- paid as supervising charges for the officers required at 100% EOU during the period July, 1998 to September, 2000. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 22.10.2001 as regards the refund claim on the ground that the charges were paid by the assessee on their own wishes and at the time of payment no protest was lodged at per Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules framed thereunder and there were no provisions under the said Act to refund such supervision charges. It was also alleged in the notice that the party had included the amount of supervision charges in the assessable value of the goods and whereby passed the incidence to their buyers.

3. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), relying upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Pipe Ltd. v. Union of India 1995 (79) ELT 05 (Raj), set aside the order of the lower authority.

4. The provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 especially Section 35B did not provide for entertaining an appeal against administrative expenses, supervision charges, mercantile overtime fees etc collected from as assessee by the department, to provide services of an officer.

The present appeal therefore, though an order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 35A, cannot be entertained by this Tribunal

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Sarla Polyester Ltd. Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge S T S.S.