Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Publish Date: 29 Jun, 2009
Print   |    |  Comment

Merchant overtime Fee - Dispute on overtime

 Merchant Overtime Fee- Dispute on overtime

 

By CA. Pradeep Jain and Sukhvinder Kaur [LLB(FYIC)]

 

 

Merchant overtime fee (MOT charges) are the charges which are required to be paid by the exporter/ assessee who is availing the services of Central Excise Officers, in accordance with any prescribed  procedure, beyond office hours or on Sunday, Saturdays or public holidays i.e. is after the official hours. The rates for the same are prescribed under the Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998.The table for the same is as under:-

 

Category of

Officers

Fee per hour or

part thereof on

Working Days

Fee per hour or

part thereof

on Holidays

 

6 AM - 8 PM
Rs.

8 PM - 6 AM
Rs.

6 AM - 8 PM
Rs.

8 PM- 6 AM
Rs.

1. Appraisers Superintendent
   Customs Preventive and
   Superintendent Central Excise

85

 

125

140

180

2. Air Customs Officers, Examiners 
    Preventive Officers and Inspectors
    of Central Excise

75

100

105

145

3. Class IV Staff

35

45

55

60

 

 

Thus, it prescribes the rates for normal working hours as well as beyond working hours as well as on holiday. As such the department says that the charges to be paid for normal working hours also.

 

But the provisions for the same have been prescribed in the CBEC’s Supplementary Instructions in Chapter 18, Part-II. The said provisions are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 

 

Over time Fee

 

1.1     Wherever an assessee or exporter is requires the services of Central Excise Officers for supervision in accordance with of any procedure specified in this regard by rules or instructions beyond office hours or on Sundays, Saturdays or public holidays and where there is no specific posting of Officers in shifts by any Office order, he shall be required to pay Merchant Overtime at the rates specified under the Customs Act, 1961 under Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations, 1998.

 

1.2     If a manufacturer or exporter requisitions the services of Central Excise Officers for supervision and examination of export cargo and stuffing in containers at his premises, such Officers also discharges functions of a “Customs Officers”.

 

Thus, it is clear that an exporter is required to pay Merchant Overtime only if supervision by the Excise Officers is done:-

 

1.     beyond office hours, or

2.     on Sundays, Saturdays or public holidays, or

3.     where there is no specific posting of Officers in shifts by any Office order.

 

There are many cases in which it has been held that the MOT fee cannot be charged for services of Central Excise Officers availed during the official hours.

 

·                    Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli [2008 (229) ELT 0077 (Tri. - Chennai)] – In this case it was held as under:-

The Board's directive contained in Circular not enforceable in law as it is ultra vires Regulation (3) of Customs (Fees for Rendering Services by Customs Officers) Regulations. Such charges are not leviable under the Regulations for supervision by officers of department during their normal office working hours. Appellants entitled to refund of MOT charges paid for supervision of their stuffing work for normal office working hours of the supervising officers of department. Impugned order set aside. Appeal of the assessee allowed. (Para.3)

·                    Rajasthan Textile Mills vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I [2007 (216) ELT 0380 (Tri.- Del.)] – In this case it was held as under:-

If the services of stuffing of goods in the container was rendered by the officers within his Range only i.e. within his normal place of work, no MOT charges is payable for stuffing of goods carried out during the working days only. The refund allowed in respect of such charges. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Para.4)

·                    Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I vs Flair Filtration (P) Ltd. [2007 (209) ELT 0475 (Tri.-Del.)] – In this case it was held as under:-

As the Supervising Officer has worked at his Normal place of work and not beyond the customs Area, during Normal working days, during working hours within their Range, no MOT is payable. There is nothing on record to prove that the services were provided beyond the normal working hours. In absence of which demand of MOT charges is not sustainable in terms of Para 3 of the Chapter 13 of the Customs Manual of Supplementary instructions. The Appellants has deposited the MOT charges in respect of services provided beyond Normal Working Hours. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Paras.6, 7)

·                    SIGMA CORPORATION (I) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI [2004 (165) ELT 168 (Tri. - Del.)] – In this case it was held as under:-

Stuffing of goods had taken place in the appellants' factory coming within the jurisdiction of the Central Excise Range. The work of stuffing was admittedly a Customs work which, being a part of loading of the goods. The Central Excise Superintendent attending to the Customs work acted as a Customs officer. The service of supervision of stuffing of goods in container was rendered by the officer within his Range only, i.e., within his normal place of work. As regards the time of work, it appears, the work was carried out on working days during working hours only. The pleading has not been rebutted by the lower appellate authority. Hence it has to be held that the stuffing work was carried out during the working hours on working days only. None of the conditions for levy of MOT charges was satisfied in this case. Hence, the demand is set aside and this appeal is allowed. (Para 3)

 

But the Department is charging MOT fee from the assessees even when the central excise officers are being asked to work within the official hours.

 

Representations have also been made to the Department to consider the matter at hand and clarify the situation regarding the charging of MOT fees from assessees for work done by the excise officers within official hours. But the department does not hear the same. The Board should consider the representation and help the exporters in such an era of global recession.

   

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com