2008 (10) TMI 505 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Exemption Notification No. 29/02-C.E. and applicability to goods cleared from a warehouse.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA, the dispute centered around the interpretation of Exemption Notification No. 29/02-C.E. and its application to goods cleared from a warehouse. The appellant, represented by Dr. Samir Chakraborty, Advocate, contested the denial of exemption by the Department regarding goods cleared from HPCL's Budge-Budge Warehouse, which were initially produced in Bangaigaon Refineries and Petrochemicals Ltd. The Department argued that the goods did not qualify for exemption as they did not come directly to the Budge-Budge Warehouse from the Refineries, but were received from BPCL Bonded Warehouse via pipelines to the Budge-Budge Terminal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal, through Member Chittaranjan Satapathy, analyzed the provisions of the Exemption Notification and concluded that there was no basis to deny the exemption merely because the goods had moved through another warehouse. The Tribunal highlighted that the law allows for the movement of non-duty-paid petroleum products from refineries to one warehouse and then to another warehouse. As such, the Tribunal found no violation of legal provisions and determined that the conditions of the Notification had been met. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order, allowing the appeal and disposing of the Stay Petition.

This judgment underscores the importance of a thorough analysis of exemption notifications and the need to interpret them in line with the legal provisions and conditions specified. It clarifies that the movement of goods through different warehouses does not automatically disqualify them from availing exemptions, provided the essential criteria are met as per the law and the Notification.