2009 (12) TMI 734 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery u/s 35F of Central Excise Act for duty and penalty demanded by Commissioner.

Issue 1: Denial of benefit of Notification No. 64/95-C.E.

The appellant, a PSU, sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for duty and penalty demanded by the Commissioner for the period July to October 2007. The dispute arose as the benefit of Notification No. 64/95-C.E. was denied to the appellant in relation to HSD oil supplied to the Indian Navy through M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.'s pipeline system. The Commissioner held that direct supply to the Navy was necessary for the Notification's benefit. The appellant cited a similar case involving M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. where waiver was granted subject to producing bonds covering the duty liability. Reference was made to the High Court's order in a writ petition filed by M/s. BPCL. The Tribunal considered these arguments.

Issue 2: Comparison with previous cases and High Court judgments

The Revenue argued that a previous stay order involving M/s. HPCL should be followed, requiring the appellant to pre-deposit a reasonable amount of duty. The Revenue distinguished the High Court judgments in BPCL's and HPCL's cases, stating they were specific to those cases' circumstances. The Tribunal noted that a similar case involving the same assessee had resulted in a direction to pre-deposit a specific amount. The appellant urged following a stay order passed in a batch of appeals by M/s. HPCL and M/s. BPCL, but the Revenue successfully differentiated those cases from the present one.

Issue 3: Consideration of relevant legal provisions

The Tribunal examined an amending Notification (No. 37/07) adding a new entry granting exemption to oil companies supplying fuels directly or indirectly to the Indian Navy/Coast Guard for use on vessels. This new entry clarified that benefits could not be claimed for indirect supplies under the original Notification. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit a specific amount towards the duty demand, considering all relevant aspects and legal provisions.

Conclusion

The Tribunal held that the appellant must pre-deposit a specified amount within four weeks. The request for an extension was not supported by sufficient evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that decisions in previous cases were not necessarily precedents for the present case, and each case's circumstances must be considered individually. Compliance was required by a specified date.