2006 (11) TMI 393

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t : Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate ORDER M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (J) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal dated 25-5-06, which set aside the order-in-original dated 6-1-2006. 2. The relevant fact that arises for consideration is that appellants were manufacturers of filter elements and were registered with the Central Excise department. They are exporting the exci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....k beyond their duty hours. It is also his submission that the appeal against the order-in-original could not be entertained by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Sigma Corporation (I) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi as reported at 2004 (165) E.L.T. 168. It is also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....within his powers to hear and dispose the said appeal. 6. As regard the merits of the case, I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has vide his order-in-appeal come to the following conclusions: In this regard, the Appellants has contended that as the Supervising Officer has worked at his "Normal place of work" and not beyond the Customs Area, during Normal working days, during wor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....within the jurisdiction of the Central Excise Range Officer who supervised the work. The work of stuffing was admittedly a Customs work which, being a part of loading of the goods, was covered by the aforesaid provision of law. The Central Excise Superintendent attending to the Customs work acted as a Customs officer. However, he was supervising the work in his normal place of work only. ....