Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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