2009 (11) TMI 694 - AT - Central Excise

Pre-deposit - Held that - The Board s circular cited by counsel also appears to favor grant of exemption under the above notification to indirect supplies of petroleum products to the Indian Navy subject to proof of co-relation between the original supply and the goods received on board the Naval vessels - It is true that the exemption notification should be strictly construed. It was upon such strict interpretation of the notification - we are inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery subject to the condition that the appellants produce bonds covering the entire duty liability.

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in relation to demands of duty and penalties. Interpretation of exemption Notification 64/95-C.E. regarding indirect supply of petroleum products to the Indian Navy. Judicial trend regarding pre-deposit requirements for PSUs.

Analysis:
1. The applications filed by M/s. BPCL and HPCL sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning demands of duty and penalties. While the Committee on Disputes cleared the applicants, one case lacked a quantified demand of duty or penalty, leading to the dismissal of the stay application. The Commissioner confirmed demands of duty and penalties against the companies in all other cases.

2. The common issue in these cases revolved around whether the appellants, manufacturers of petroleum products, could claim the benefit of exemption Notification 64/95-C.E. for supplying HSD oil to the Indian Navy through another oil company's pipeline system. A previous Tribunal decision favored granting this benefit to the oil company supplying the Navy indirectly, citing a circular of the Board supporting such claims. However, the JCDR referenced a case law where a similar benefit was denied due to indirect supply through ship builders.

3. The appellants argued that the facts of their case, involving the supply of HSD oil through a continuous pipeline system owned by another company, distinguished their situation from the precedent where indirect supply through ship builders led to benefit denial. They highlighted the Board's circular and previous High Court orders substituting pre-deposit with bonds for similar cases involving PSUs. The Tribunal, considering these arguments, inclined towards granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, subject to the appellants producing bonds covering the entire duty liability within a specified timeline.

4. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the exemption notification, the historical context of supply logistics, and the distinction between direct and indirect supply to the Indian Navy. The requirement for bonds to cover the disputed duty liability was deemed appropriate, aligning with the judicial trend favoring PSUs in pre-deposit matters. The decision aimed to balance the strict interpretation of the exemption notification with the practical considerations of the appellants' supply chain logistics, ultimately granting relief based on the specific circumstances of the case.