TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 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 excisable goods stuffed in the container in their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion 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 his submission that the ld. Commissioner (Appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. 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 working hours within their range, no MOT is payable. In this re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervised 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. I also find that working hours has been also defined in Customs Regulation....