1984 (4) TMI 291 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification Nos. 11-CE, dated 5-4-1949 and 232/67-CE, dated 9-10-1967 for exemption from excise duties on bunkers supplied to a vessel. Determination of whether the vessel 'Lajpatrai' was entitled to exemption while engaged in lighterage operations beyond Indian territorial waters.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. appealing against the rejection of their claim for exemption of excise duty on bunkers supplied to the vessel 'Lajpatrai'. The dispute arose when the Superintendent of Central Excise demanded duty on the bunkers supplied to 'Lajpatrai' for lighterage operations beyond Indian territorial waters. The Corporation contended that 'Lajpatrai' was an ocean-going vessel and eligible for exemption under the relevant Notifications. However, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the duty demand, stating that 'Lajpatrai' did not touch a foreign port, thus not qualifying as a foreign-going vessel.

The Corporation argued before the Tribunal that 'Lajpatrai' should be considered a foreign-going vessel as it went beyond Indian territorial waters for lighterage operations. The Tribunal, however, disagreed, emphasizing that a vessel on a foreign run must either come from or be bound for a foreign port. The Tribunal held that 'Lajpatrai' did not meet these criteria and was not eligible for the claimed exemption. The Tribunal also noted that the vessel's location for lighterage did not constitute a place outside India, as required for foreign-going status.

The appellants sought to refer questions of law to the High Court regarding the interpretation of the exemption Notifications. However, the Tribunal refused to refer the questions, citing previous interpretations of the same Notifications by the High Court of Bombay. The Tribunal emphasized that settled law need not be referred to the High Court for re-interpretation. The Tribunal also clarified that it cannot review or sit in judgment over the previous Order-in-Appeal, stating that the applicants had chosen the wrong remedy by filing the reference application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Reference Application, stating that the questions raised by the appellants did not warrant referral to the High Court due to previous interpretations by the High Court of Bombay. The Tribunal emphasized that the remedy for disagreement with the previous decision was not through a reference application but through other appropriate legal avenues.