9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. ORDER After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the ld. Commissioner demanded duty of over Rs. 3.85 crores from M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL for short) on HSD oil sold by them to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL for short) during the period of dispute. The Commissioner denied them the benefit of Notification No. 64/95-C.E., dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty, submits that the benefit of exemption was not admissible to the appellant inasmuch as the goods were supplied to IOCL on a principal-to-principal basis and not directly supplied to the Indian Navy. According to the Id. JCDR, exemption was extended to indirect supplies only with effect from 1-11-2007 under Notification No. 37/2007-C.E., dated 1-11-2007. We have perused this Notification a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arificatory and retrospective. We are not able to accept this argument. It is trite law that an exemption Notification needs to be strictly construed. On this principle, we hold that the benefit of exemption under entry no. 3 of the table annexed to Notification 64/95 can be extended only to direct supplies of stores to the Indian Navy for consumption on board their vessels and cannot be allowed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amine the implications of amending Notification No. 37/07-C.E. Further, the bench chose to follow the view taken by a Committee of Secretaries and did not examine the issue independently. We are of the view that any decision taken by the Committee of Secretaries has no precedent value for this Tribunal. We find no ratio decidendi in the above case. On the other hand, it appears, a decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue considered therein was not the same as the one which is being agitated before us. 3. In the result, 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. We direct them to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
