2017 (4) TMI 490

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verification and fresh orders - penalties set aside - matter on remand.
Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Gajendra Jain, Advocate with Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Adv for the Appellants Shri. V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Per: Raju These appeals have been filed by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd(M/s. BPCL). The dispute in all these appeals is the same. The appellant were clearing goods to IOCL for further clearances of the same to Indian Navy. The appellant supplied the goods to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Wadala(M/s. IOCL(W). The IOCL(W) supplied the part of the goods to Indian Navy under exemption under Sr. No. 3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... heir depots for further sale at nil rate of duty to the end users. Vide letter dated 6-12-2004, permission was granted by the Asstt. Commissioner. Thereafter vide letter dated 22-2-2005 permission was sought to clear the goods to their depots for further clearance of sale at nil rate of duty to eligible customers. He pointed out that in the said letter IOCL(W) also included on 3-3-2005 the permission was granted. He pointed out that in case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd(supra) no permission was sought or granted by the Commissionerate and therefore the said decision is distinguishable. He further re the decision of this Tribunal in case of GE India Industrial Ltd Vs. CCE[2016(335) ELT 103(T)] and in case of CCE Vs. Wartsila(I) Pvt Ltd[2016( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore appellant have failed to distinguished from the decision of this Tribunal inc case Indian Oil Corporation Ltd[2008(229) ELT 100(TRI.). 6. The appellant have sought to rely on the decision of GE India Industrial Ltd(Supra). It is seen that the said decision was given in respect of Sr. 21 of the notification which does not require supply of goods to Indian Navy as stores and therefore the decision in case of GE India Industrial Ltd(supra) and Wartsila (I) Pvt Ltd(Supra) are on different footing. The decision in case of Leader Engg. Works(supra) in respect of supply of stores onboard Indian Navy squarely applicable to the fact of the present case. The said decision has been approved by Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in [2007(21 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X