9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such an order at paragraph 34 thereof. Also, the next paragraph records the operative part of the order. For facility of appreciation of what the findings and the conclusion are, we consider it appropriate to quote the same below: "34. I hereby summarise the discussions and findings mentioned above: a) The Impugned Drill Ship ABAN-ICE was never used for the Petroleum Operations undertaken under the contract dated 22.12.2008 as specified in the Essential Certificate dated 04.11.2013 for the contract area Block MB-OSN-2005/06 thus violated the mandatory condition to be treated as the goods for which the duty exemption is allowed against the Sr. No.359 of Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Customs dated 11.03.2012. b) The amendments (additions of blocks) to the Essentiality Certificate dated 04.11.2013 by issuing the No Objection Certificate dated 06.07.2015 were in contravention to the Doctrine of Curability as at the time of the issuance of the said amendments, the said Essentiality Certificate was not valid (It had the validity of six months from the date of issue). The bonafide intention was also lacking in the act of getting the blocks added to the said Essentiality Certifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s but they willfully used the said Drill Ship for other purpose and also suppressed their activities till the same were disclosed during the investigation by DRI. Therefore in view of the misstatement and willful suppression of facts on the part of the noticee, the invocation of provisions of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 to demand duty and interest thereon from the noticee are legal & proper and noticee for their act of misstatement and willful suppression of facts are also liable for penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. e) The noticee is the owner of the Drill Ship ABAN-ICE and fulfills all the criteria of importer in terms of definition of 'Importer' under section 2(26) of Customs Act, 1962. As the ABAN-ICE is not entitled for duty exemption under Sr.No.359 ibid., duty of Rs. 91,60,43,316/- (being the customs duty foregone due to exemption being allowed) along with appropriate interest thereon is payable by the noticee under Section 28(4) and 28 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively. (underlining for emphasis by us) 35. On the basis of the foregoing findings, I pass the following order: ORDER i) I deny the benefit of Sr.no.359 of Exemption Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the challenge 2. The pleaded case in the writ petition, relevant for the purpose of adjudication, runs thus: (a) Petroleum being an extremely important natural resource, all petroleum operations and in particular off-shore petroleum operations require permission and approval of the Central Government. Initially, it was only Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereafter "ONGC", for short) which was granted petroleum mining lease (hereafter "PML", for short) by the Central Government to carry out petroleum production operation on nomination basis. Thereafter, roughly during the period 1992-1993, the Government entered into "production sharing contract" with private companies (also known as specified contracts) for small/medium sized fields (with proven reserves discovered by ONGC/Oil India). Later, roughly since April, 1999, petroleum operations were opened up for private and foreign companies including ONGC through international competitive bidding process. Various New Exploration Licensing Policies (hereafter "NELP", for short) were announced by the Central Government from time to time, being NELP I to NELP XI. Production sharing contracts were entered into between the Central G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Nos. 41 and 44 relatable to Sr. Nos. 356 and 359 of the said exemption notification, respectively. (d) AOL having applied for an Essentiality Certificate for a drill ship named Aban-ICE, ONGC recommended to the DGH for grant thereof. Problem arose in the on-line application form for grant of Essentiality Certificate. There was no direction or column in the on-line application form for mentioning the particulars of all the individual blocks where operations are to be carried out as per the contract of the importer with ONGC. There was yet another problem in such application form in that, it did not permit indication of both Sr. Nos. 356 and 359 as being applicable in a given case. This is a practical problem in the case of ONGC alone, since some petroleum operations undertaken by ONGC are governed by Sr. No. 356 (PML) while some others are governed by Sr. No. 359 (NELP). This problem, however, does not exist for private operators who would be governed only by Sr. No. 359. Since the form of application is not prescribed in the customs notification and there is no reference to the blocks at all in such notification, mentioning of the block in the Essentiality Certificate is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (h) Deployment in different blocks within production sharing contracts granted under NELP has never been objected to by the customs, including even in the present show cause notice or order-in-original. Therefore, though ONGC's letter dated 28th October, 2013 changed the location of first deployment to MB-OSN-2005/5 block (prior to grant of Essentiality Certificate on 4th November, 2013 indicating the location of the block as MB-OSN-2005/6, neither AOL nor ONGC thought it necessary to amend the application from filed with the DGH, since block MB-OSN-2005/5 was also within NELP area. (i) After importing Aban-ICE and filing bill of entry dated 5th November, 2013, AOL claimed the benefit of the said exemption notification. The Essentiality Certificate dated 4th November, 2013 was also duly filed with the customs. After complying with all formalities, the bill of entry was duly assessed and goods allowed to be cleared by the proper officer of the customs. Thus, Aban-ICE was cleared without payment of customs duty under Sr. No. 359 of the said exemption notification. (j) In addition to import of Aban-ICE, AOL also separately imported parts, spares and other capital goods on fili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order dated August 3, 2015 as and when deployed beyond December 31, 2016 only within India for ONGC contracts - present and future - as per directions and written instructions of ONGC and also when merely stationed in India during monsoon will be in compliance with the Order dated August 3, 2015 passed by this Hon'ble High Court;" The order recorded that the respondents in the writ petition had no-objection to such prayer being granted so long Aban-ICE is required for deployment within India. (p) It was on 27th February, 2017 that the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Imports-I) made the impugned order together with findings which have been noted at the beginning of this judgment and order. (q) The impugned order relied on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Supreme Castings Ltd. vs. Jt. Director General of Foreign Trade, Ludhiana 2016 (342) ELT 176 (P&H), to hold that an Essentiality Certificate cannot be amended after expiry. According to the petitioners, the decision in Supreme Castings (supra) is clearly distinguishable and it is the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. vs. Union of India 2011 (267) ELT 49 (Bom) [which se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directing that Aban-ICE shall be permitted to be parked at Inner Anchorage, Mumbai Port as the vessel could not remain at the contract site because of nearing of the completion of the contract period. (d) On 6th October 2020, the writ petition was admitted by this Court upon hearing the parties. The following detailed order was passed: "P.C.: Heard Mr. Sridharan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jetly, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order in original dated 27/2/2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai. 3. Primary contention of Mr. Sridharan is that the adjudicating authority has questioned the action of Director General of Hydrocarbon, Government of India in making the amendments to the Essentiality Certificate dated 4/11/2013, which is beyond the competence of the adjudicating authority. The same has vitiated the impugned order. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on the following decisions: 1) Zuari Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, 2007 (210) ELT 648 9SC); 2) Bombay Chemicals Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1982 (10) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incipal Commissioner, to urge this Court that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant judicial interdiction. (a) The case of the respondents 1 and 2 in the reply affidavit is majorly three-limbed. (b) They have first and foremost pleaded that remedy under Article 226 cannot be availed of in the present case as the petitioners have not exhausted all other available remedies. The order under challenge could be carried in an appeal provided by section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, which the petitioner has not pursued. Moreover, they have pleaded that the present case is not of an exceptional nature, where breach of Fundamental Rights is complained of or violation of natural justice is alleged justifying interference by the Court by way of entertainment of the writ petition despite the statutory alternative remedy. Since the appellate remedy is available to the petitioners and particularly when a matter relating to revenue is involved, it has been urged that the Court should decline interference in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs State of Orissa AIR 1983 SC 603. (c) Secondly, it has been pleaded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Paragraphs 18 and 22 refer to the fact that the application for Essentiality Certificate was submitted on 1st November, 2013 by an operator of ONGC without mentioning the change of the drilling location. In paragraph 29, it is asserted that since on the date of generation of the application for issuance of Essential Certificate the petitioner no. 1 as well as ONGC were both aware of change of the location of initial deployment, therefore, it was open to the petitioner no. 1 and ONGC to indicate the proposed initial deployment of Aban-ICE appropriately and correctly in Sr. No. 13 on the on-line application form and that the petitioners cannot now take advantage of their own wrong. Affidavit in Rejoinder to Affidavit in Reply by the Respondents 1 & 2 a) It is contended that the contents of the affidavit in reply do not counter the specific averments made in the writ petition. b) It is contended that remedy under Customs Act, 1962 is not effective and relief claimed in this writ petition, if granted, will be effective and complete. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 7. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Sridharan, learned senior advocate contended that: a) The cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by Ajit Muzumdar, petitioner no.2). Similarly, some other spares/consumables for Aban-ICE were imported in March 2014 for PML Block and Essentiality Certificate issued showing eligibility under Sr. No. 356 of the said exemption notification (page 399 of 'Further Affidavit in support of Petition' filed by Ajit Muzumdar). e) At the request of AOL and recommendation made by ONGC, post facto approval was granted by the DGH for addition of various blocks where Aban-ICE was used for the purposes of the contract dated 19th September, 2013 (page 247 of the WP). In all cases, import was made within 6 months from the Essentiality Certificate as is evident from the bills of entry. f) Affidavit (page 196 of the WP) filed by ONGC reinforces the position that AOL is a sub-contractor pursuant to the contract dated 19th September, 2013. ONGC also filed undertaking (page 197 of the WP) to the effect that Aban-ICE will be used for petroleum operations and in case of any violation of the said exemption notification, ONGC will pay the duty, fine and penalty. g) In the earlier round of litigation against seizure in the year 2015, the DGH filed an affidavit confirming that they have indeed g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he power to amend a license retrospectively was referred by CESTAT to its larger Bench. In the referral order, this question is noted. The larger Bench of the CESTAT in Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai2008 (223) ELT 172 (Tri. - LB) held that the licensing authorities do not have the power to amend the license with retrospective effect from the date of granting the licence. However, the Bombay High Court in Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. vs. Union of India 2011 (267) ELT 49 (Bom) set aside the larger Bench CESTAT ruling. l) In Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1992 Supp (1) SCC 21, the Supreme Court at paragraph 20 has held that the consequence from the non-compliance of the condition would flow if the condition was a substantive one and one fundamental to the policy underlying the exemption. Its stringency and mandatory nature must be justified by the purpose intended to be served. The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy, and some others may merely belong to the area ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal available under section 129A of the Customs Act. 12. Mr. Jetly brought to our notice that the Rajasthan High Court has also taken a similar view in its judgment and order dated 5th November, 1999 in Laxman Singh Verma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors CDJ 1999 Raj HC 223. 13. Moving on to address us on the merits of the challenge, Mr. Jetly contended that the petitioners intended to avail the benefit of the said exemption notification. One of the mandatory conditions thereof for availing the benefit of exemption is a valid Essentiality Certificate to be issued by the Directorate of Hydrocarbon. Admittedly, the petitioners were not having an Essentiality Certificate for the contract area, viz. block MB-OSN-2005/05, and the Essentiality Certificate issued in respect of block MB-OSN-2005/06 did not entitle the petitioners to claim benefit of exemption. As the exemption sought by the petitioners is premised on the Essentiality Certificate dated 4th November, 2013, which was issued for block MB-OSN-2005/06 and not for block MB-OSN-2005/05, the petitioners are not entitled to claim benefit of the said exemption notification based on an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such ambiguity must go in favour of the revenue; also, the burden of proving applicability of the exemption notification would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. 18. Next, reliance was placed on paragraph 37 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sitaram vs. Radhey Shyam Vishnav & Ors. AIR 2018 SC 1298, where it has been held: "37. The discussion hereinabove can be categorized into three compartments. First, the deposit is mandatory and the mode of deposit is directory; second, the non-deposit will entail dismissal and irregular deposit is curable and third, in the other areas like verification, signature of parties, service copy, etc., the principle of substantial compliance or the doctrine of curability will apply". 19. Based on the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Jetly contended that even on merits the petitioner has been unable to set up any case for interference and, thus, the Rule Nisi be discharged with costs. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 20. The respondent no.3, DGH, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, was represented by Mr. D. P. Singh. He referred to the affidavit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the decision in Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar AIR 2005 SC 626. 26. Thus, we have a case before us where the Court has by its order dated 6th October, 2020 admitted this writ petition. The stage of entertainment has been crossed with such order. What remains is the question of adjudication of the rival claims of the parties based on the authorities cited. 27. Relying on Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (supra), Mr. Jetly has contended that even after issuance of Rule a writ petition could be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy. We quote the relevant passage from the said decision, which is heavily relied on by Mr. Jetly, hereinbelow: "38. *** True it is that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not dismissing a petition if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ court. It has been so held even by this Court in several cases that even if alternative remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ petition is not maintainable. In our judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eover, by not following the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court or the subordinate courts would also be violating the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 30. Thus, faced with two decisions of the Supreme Court of co-equal strength expressing inconsistent opinion, we have to prefer one between the two. Technically, we are bound by the ratio decidendi of both the decisions. Had Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (supra) been decided taking L. Hirday Narain (supra) into consideration, we would certainly be bound to follow the former. However, Article 141 makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts within the territory of India, meaning thereby that the law declared by the Bench in L. Hirday Narain (supra) was also binding on the Bench that decided Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (supra). If, therefore, we prefer to be guided by L. Hirday Narain (supra), there could be no violation of Article 141. In any event, law seems to be well-settled that if two decisions of benches of co-equal strength are delivered containing seemingly inconsistent or even contradictory views, it would be open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the preliminary objection by the order dated 6th October, 2020, the law laid down in Bhanu Kumar Jain (supra) would clearly apply and hence we have no other option but to proceed to decide the next issue. In the process, we hold that the decisions in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), Hover Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the other decisions on alternative remedy would have no application on facts and in the circumstances. 32. We, therefore, answer issue (a) in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents 1 and 2. ISSUE (b) 33. Mr. Jetly has placed strong reliance on the decision in Dilip Kumar (supra) in support of his contention that if there be any ambiguity in an exemption notification, the benefit of such ambiguity must go the taxing authority and not to the assessee. 34. We consider it proper to straightaway notice the law declared in Dilip Kumar (supra). The first paragraph captures the point that was referred to for a decision by the Constitution Bench second paragraph records how the matter came up before such bench, with the answers being traceable in paragraph 66. It would be useful to read paragraphs 1 and 66 together with some other paragraphs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusion. We may now consider the decisions which support our view. *** 64. In Hari Chand case [(2011) 1 SCC 236], as already discussed, the question was whether a person claiming exemption is required to comply with the procedure strictly to avail the benefit. The question posed and decided was indeed different. The said decision, which we have already discussed supra, however, indicates that while construing an exemption notification, the Court has to distinguish the conditions which require strict compliance, the non-compliance of which would render the assessee ineligible to claim exemption and those which require substantial compliance to be entitled for exemption. We are pointing out this aspect to dispel any doubt about the legal position as explored in this decision. 65. As already concluded in paras 53 to 55 and 63, above, we may reiterate that we are only concerned in this case with a situation where there is ambiguity in an exemption notification or exemption clause, in which event the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be extended to the subject/assessee by applying the principle that an obscure and/or ambiguity or doubtful fiscal statute must receive a construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner noticed leading to formation of an opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the said exemption notification. According to him, as per the contract dated 22nd December, 2008 and the Essentiality Certificate dated 4th November, 2013, Aban-ICE was required to be put to work for petroleum operations in the contract area, i.e., block MB-OSN-2005/06; instead, it was used in block MB-OSN-2005/05 (the digits are given by us in bold font to appreciate the difference in the blocks) and this constituted violation of the mandatory condition of duty exemption. Although the Principal Commissioner has recorded in his order at paragraph 34(d) that Aban-ICE "is being utilized for the other blocks which are not covered under the specific contract dated 22.12.2008 for which it was imported under duty free under the exemption notification", it has not been shown by referring to such order and the terms of the contracts dated 22nd December, 2008 or dated 19th September, 2013 by Mr. Jetly that Aban-ICE could not have been deployed in any block other than block MB-OSN-2005/06. It has also not been found by the Principal Commissioner that Aban-ICE was deployed for purposes ali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable. Accordingly, the customs duty for neither rigs/equipments/tools nor for spares, consumables and accessories required for operation and maintenance of the equipments/rigs is to be built in the quoted price. The rigs/equipments/tools imported by the contractor for deployment in PEL/ML/NELP shall not be used to deploy by the contractor for any purpose other than the jobs arising out of the agreement awarded by the operator and in the event of the rigs/equipments/tools being misused or put to use other than the specified use, the contractor shall be liable to pay fine, penalty and other action taken by the customs department and other authorities for violation of the customs rules and regulations and other allied rules. Contractor should also compensate the operator for the duty elements in such cases." 40. We have found from page 293 of the writ petition, marked Ext. EE, that it is titled as a "Joint Statement of Shri ..., Group General Manager, Head Planning & Contracting, ONGC, Mumbai region, Drilling Services and Shri ..., Deputy General Manager (Drilling), Planning & Contracting, Drilling Services, ONGC...". Such statement was recorded in terms of section 108 of the Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the off-shore areas, Aban-ICE could not have been removed at the whims and fancies of AOL and deployed for petroleum exploration in areas not within the control of ONGC or beyond the agreed area. It indeed ought to have been the endeavor of the Principal Commissioner to unearth whether Aban-ICE was used for the substantive purpose, i.e., petroleum exploration, for which exemption of duty was envisaged by the said exemption notification or whether it was put to use for purposes alien to the contract dated 19th September, 2013. Also, it does not seem to have exercised the consideration of the Principal Commissioner as to whether the purpose intended to be served for claiming exemption was justified or not. 43. What we observe on perusal of the said exemption notification is that it lays down essential conditions of eligibility for claiming exemption. There is also a procedure for claiming such exemption. Clause 15.6 of the contract (supra) made it clear that customs duty for neither rigs/equipments/tools nor for spares, consumables and accessories required for operation and maintenance of the equipments/rigs are to be built in the quoted price. Conclusion that can be drawn from s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if little more care and attention had been paid to the details of the block where Aban-ICE was required to be first deployed for drilling operations. 46. Be that as it may, we have not been shown with reference to the reply affidavit of the respondents 1 and 2 that Aban-ICE was deployed for petroleum exploration operations in block MBOSN-2005/05 dehors the contract dated 22nd December, 2008. According to clause 1.1.12(a) extracted supra, the drill ship could be deployed anywhere in off-shore Indian waters by ONGC. There is no clear finding that Aban-ICE was deployed other than in off-shore Indian waters by ONGC or that its initial location was not the West coast. The said affidavit is also silent as to how the Principal Commissioner could have refuse to consider the NOC issued by the DGH in respect of Aban-ICE, particularly when the spares, accessories and other consumables in respect of the same vessel were covered by other Essentiality Certificates and exemption, which was claimed, had been allowed. 47. The existence of the NOC dated 6th July, 2015 issued by the DGH amending the Essentiality Certificate by including block MB-OSN-2005/05 on record was negated by the Principal Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a later stage also.' (Murarka case, AIR p. 1551, para 13) In other words, non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act was not 'fatal' to the maintainability of an election petition and the defect could be remedied. It would follow that if an election petition did not comply with the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act, it would still be called an election petition. 48. The broad principle laid down in Murarka was somewhat restricted by another Constitution Bench decision rendered in Subbarao v. Election Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1027. In that case, the Constitution Bench introduced two clear principles: firstly, that 'if there is a total and complete non-compliance with the provisions of Section 81(3), the election petition might not be an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part within Section 80 of the Act' (AIR p. 1031, para 14) and secondly, that 'if there is a substantial compliance with the requirement of Section 81(3), the election petition cannot be dismissed by the Tribunal under Section 90(3)'. (AIR p. 1033, para 25) 49. In T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose, (1999) 4 SCC 274, this Court reiterated the doctrine of substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired for petroleum exploration operations. We agree with Mr. Sridharan that the validity period of 6 (six) months specified in the Essentiality Certificate was meant for the purpose of import to avail the benefit of the said exemption notification and also that the Commissioner was not right in perceiving that such certificate, after 6 (six) months, became non est or invalid, so much so that the particulars of the block even could not have been amended. 51. In our considered opinion, the DGH in issuing the Essentiality Certificate does not perform a quasi-judicial function. We have not been shown any statutory rule following which the Essentiality Certificate has to be issued; on the contrary, such certificate is issued in exercise of administrative function and based on policy or expediency. It was, therefore, open to the DGH to issue the NOC. We do not see reason to say that this was an appropriate case where the Principal Commissioner, resting on the 'Doctrine of Curability', could have negated the effect of the NOC. 52. In Supreme Castings (supra), the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was considering a challenge to an appellate order dated 7th February 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004) 7 SCC 166 it has been held that the general rule of denial of relief owing to suppression applies only when the suppressed fact is a material one, i.e., one which would have an effect on the merits of the case. 54. In our view, to amount to suppression of a material fact there has to be something more than a mere non-disclosure. The objection of Mr. Jetly that AOL had willfully suppressed the fact that Aban-ICE is being utilized for other blocks, which are not covered under the specific contract dated 22nd December 2008 for which it was imported, does not commend to us to be sound. It is obviously not a case disclosing an element of sharp practice adopted by AOL; rather, it was largely due to oversight that the particulars of block MB-OSN-2005/05 were not mentioned in the online application form by AOL as well as in the recommendation letter by ONGC. Mere indiscretion and/or inattentiveness cannot be equated with evil motive to conceal a relevant fact for obtaining undue benefits. We, therefore, overrule Mr Jetly's objection in this behalf. 55. The order-in-original dated 27th February, 2017 suffers from illegality as well as irrationality which constitute vices in the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
