9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. - E/3268/2006, 80, 82-83, 268 and 147/2008 - Stay Order Nos. S/375-380/2009-WZB/C-I/EB - Dated:- 16-11-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko and B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Shri B. Raichandani and M.H. Patil, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri S.L. Meena, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. ORDER These applications filed by M/s. BPCL and HPCL seek waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of demands of duty and penalties. The applicants/appellants have obtained clearance from the Committee on Disputes . It is, however, noticed that, in one of these cases there is no quantified demand of duty or penalty (Appeal No. E/268/2008 of M/s. BPCL). The stay application filed in this appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In all other cases, the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... den to M/s. IOCL. Learned counsel for the appellants have relied on a circular of the Board also. In a Circular 804/1/2005-CX., dated 4-1-2005, the Board had considered issues arising out of indirect supply of petroleum products by oil companies to the Indian Navy and the Cost Guard. A factual situation similar to the one arising in the instant case was considered by the Board and it was decided that in all such cases, provisional assessment should be resorted at the end of the supplier and that, on finalization of such assessment, evidence of co-relation between the goods supplied and the one received on Board the vessels of the Indian Navy Coast Guard/should be established. Learned Counsel for the appellants have relied on this circular a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asmuch as, in these cases, HSD oil was supplied by the appellants to the Indian Navy through continuous pipeline system. M/s. IOCL who owns the pipeline system do not appear to have handled the goods. There was no direct way of supply of the petroleum product by the appellants to the Indian Navy. They could supply the goods to the Navy only with the logistic support of IOCL for historical reasons. This aspect appears to have been taken care of in the Board s circular. It is true that the exemption notification should be strictly construed. It was upon such strict interpretation of the notification that this Bench directed pre-deposit in HPCL s case on an earlier occasion. Learned counsel has submitted that when a similar order was issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
