9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (8) TMI 914 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre-deposit - Benefit of N/N. 64/95-C.E. dated 16-3-95 - HSD oil was supplied by IOCL to the Indian Navy for consumption on board the naval vessels - denial on the ground that the goods were supplied to IOCL on a principal-to-principal basis and not directly supplied to the Indian Navy - Held that - we have not found prima facie case for the appellant against the demand of duty. They have no financial hardships either. The appellant should therefore make a reasonable pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 64/95-C.E. regarding exemption from excise duty on goods supplied to the Indian Navy. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 37/2007-C.E. to indirect supplies of goods. 3. Pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Issue 1 - Interpretation of Notification No. 64/95-C.E.: The case involved a dispute where the ld. Commissioner demanded duty from a company on HSD oil sold to another company for supply to the Indian Navy. The ld. counsel for the appellant argued that the benefit of exemption under the Notification did not require direct supply to the Indian Navy. However, the ld. Jt. CDR contended that the exemption was not applicable as the goods were not directly supplied to the Indian Navy. The Tribunal held that the exemption under the Notification could only be extended to direct supplies to the Indian Navy for consumption on their vessels, not to indirect supplies like in the case. The Tribunal emphasized strict construction of exemption Notifications and noted that the benefit for indirect supplies was introduced only from 1-11-2007, while the dispute period predated this amendment. Issue 2 - Applicability of Notification No. 37/2007-C.E.: The Tribunal examined Notification No. 37/2007-C.E., which introduced an exemption for fuels supplied as stores for consumption on board Indian Navy vessels. The ld. counsel argued for retrospective application of this amendment, but the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that exemption Notifications must be strictly construed. The Tribunal clarified that the benefit of exemption for indirect supplies was applicable only from 1-11-2007, and not for the period in question before the amendment. Issue 3 - Pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F: The Tribunal found no prima facie case for the appellant against the duty demand and noted their lack of financial hardship. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a reasonable pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The appellant was instructed to deposit Rs. 1,00,00,000 within four weeks, with compliance to be reported by a specified date. Upon compliance, there would be a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery regarding the penalty and the remaining duty amount. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the interpretation of the exemption Notification, the timing of amendments, and the pre-deposit requirement under the Central Excise Act, providing detailed reasoning and legal references to support its decision.
|
