Gujarat High Court
Reliance Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise-Rajkot on 19 November, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/2005/2008 ORDER DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2005 of 2008
With
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 492 of 2011
With
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 493 of 2011
==========================================================
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-RAJKOT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR JOSHI SENIOR ADVOCATE for GANDHI LAW
ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ARCHIT P JANI(7304) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. By way of present writ petitions, the petitioner has inter alia prayed
for the following reliefs, as prayed in Tax Appeal No.2005 of 2008:
"19.(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned Order dated 10.12.2007(Ex.J) passed by the Customs Excise
and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
(b) for such further and other relief as the nature and circumstances of the
case may warrant."
2. At the outset, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
submitted that the present appeal may be disposed of in view of the
decision of Coordinate Bench in case of Naval Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise (2024) 17 Centax 298 (Guj.).
3. It is noticed by us that while admitting the present appeal and
framing the substantial question of law vide order dated 23.12.2010, the
Coordinate Bench has referred to the case of Naval Overseas Pvt. Ltd in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/2005/2008 ORDER DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
Tax Appeal No.1610 of 2008 with Tax Appeal No. 1658 of 2008. The
order dated 23.12.2010 reads thus:
"1. Heard Mr. Jaydeep Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant.
2. Learned counsel has invited attention impugned order of the Tribunal to
point out that the Tribunal has placed reliance upon its earlier decision in the
case of Naval Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Attention is also invited to the order dated 22
September, 2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naval
Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 1610 of 2008 with Tax Appeal No. 1658
of 2008, whereby the Court has admitted the appeal preferred by the assessee
and formulated substantial questions of law.
3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal is admitted.
The following substantial question of law arises for determination:
Excise Officers are "Whether the Central entitled to charge merchant
overtime fee for carrying out examination and supervision of loading
of export goods at the factory of the manufacturer during office hours
days?""
4. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties are ad idem
that the decision in case of Naval Overseas Pvt. Ltd (supra), would
squarely cover and answer the substantial question of law. The relevant
observations of the said decision are as under:-
16. Regulation 3 Regulations,1998 provides for Levy of Fees for rendering
of services by Custom Officer, Regulation3(3) reads as under:
(3) The fees levied under sub-regulation(1) shall be subject to the
following conditions, namely:-
(a) The levy of fees as aforesaid shall be for a minimum of 3 hours
in each case, except in case of overtime postings immediately preceding or
immediately following the working hours of the concerned cadre of
officers.
(b) The period between midnight and 6 A.M. shall be treated as a block
whether the services are required for the entire block or for a portion
threof.
(c) In relation to jobs to be performed by any customs officer during the
working hours, there shall be two blocks one before lunch and the other
after lunch respectively and fees shall be charged for the entire block
whether the request for the services of such officer relates to the entire
block or a portion thereof."
17. It is not in dispute that the place of working/supervision was at the
factory of the appellant and it is also not in dispute that supervision was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/TAXAP/2005/2008 ORDER DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
made by the Range Cenral Excise Officer in whose territory the factory of
the appellant is located. Chapter 13 of the C.B.E. & C. 's Customs
Manuals deals with "Merchant Overtime Fee" wherein it is provided that
if services are rendered by the Custom Officer at a place which is not his
normal place of work or place beyond the custom area, overtime is levied
even during the normal working hours.
18. Therefore, in the facts of the case, none of the condition for levy of the
MOT charges is satisfied and accordingly, the appeal is allowed by
answering the questions in negative and in favour of the appellant to the
effect that the appellant would not be liable to pay Merchant Overtime
Charges for carrying out examination and supervision of loading of export
goods at the factory premises of the manufacturer during the office hours
on working day by the Central Excise Officers contrary to the instruction
of the Central Board of Excise and Customs."
5. Hence, the present appeal stands allowed in favour of the appellant,
in terms of the judgment and order dated 13.03.2024, passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Naval Overseas Pvt. Ltd
(supra) and the substantial questions of law is answered accordingly.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
Radhika/ 17
