2019 (6) TMI 499 - AT - Central Excise

Withdrawal of benefit of Warehousing - withdrawal of benefit of notification by issue of Notification No. 17/2004-CE (NT) dt. 04/09/2004 - HELD THAT - The dispute has arisen during the period immediately after the withdrawal of warehousing provisions with effect from 06/09/2004. Because of the urgency regarding the supply of petroleum products to Indian Navy/Coast Guard, such supplies were made on payment of duty without benefit of Notification No. 64/95, as amended. The Notification clearly provides for clearance of goods at nil rate of duty for supply for use in the construction of warships for the Indian Navy as well as Coast Guard. The Notification further provides for supply of stores for consumption on board vessels of Navy. From the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals), we are unable to come to the conclusion whether all the relevant records as indicated above have been verified. Both the Authorities below have indicated however that the proof of payment of duty on such clearances made to Indian Navy/Coast Guard has not been submitted - the issue needs to be remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for verification of the relevant documents. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Benefit of warehousing of petroleum products withdrawal
2. Clearance of goods at 'nil' rate of duty
3. Rejection of refund claim based on unjust enrichment
4. Verification of relevant documents for refund claim

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the withdrawal of the benefit of warehousing of petroleum products through a notification issued in 2004. The appellant, having a refinery at Haldia, faced issues with the clearance of petroleum products from the refinery after the withdrawal of warehousing provisions.

2. The appellant made supplies to Indian Navy/Coast Guard and foreign-going vessels as ship stores during the period in question. The supplies to Indian Navy/Coast Guard were entitled to clearance at 'nil' rate of duty as per specific notifications, subject to certain conditions. The appellant also supplied goods in emergency situations due to natural disasters, which were also entitled to similar benefits.

3. The appellant cleared goods to the mentioned customers on payment of duty and subsequently filed a refund claim, which was rejected based on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellant argued that all necessary documentary evidence supporting the refund claim had been submitted, including certificates from relevant authorities and supply orders indicating nil Excise Duty.

4. The rejection of the refund claim was based on various reasons cited by the Adjudicating Authority, including non-submission of crucial supporting documents and changes in the total refund amount claimed by the appellant. The issue of verification of documents, particularly proof of payment of duty on clearances made to Indian Navy/Coast Guard, was highlighted as a point of contention.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, observed that the supplies made by the appellant to Indian Navy/Coast Guard appeared to be entitled to the 'nil' rate of duty benefit as per the relevant notifications. However, there was uncertainty regarding the verification of all relevant records, especially proof of duty payment. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for thorough verification of documents, with a directive to complete the process and pass a fresh order within two months from the date of the tribunal's decision. The appellant was instructed to submit all necessary documents related to duty payment, supply orders, and certificates for the verification process.

← Previous Next →