9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (J) and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) S/Shri M. H. Patil, Advocate with T.C. Nair, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri K. J. Sanchis, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. have filed these appeals against the rejection of refund claims filed by them. 2. The appellants purchased duty paid HSD-LSHF from M/s Reliance Industries Ltd., Jamnagar and supplied the same to the Naval Ships. M/s Reliance Industries have cleared the goods to the appellants on payment of basic excise duty and additional excise duty. Under Notification No. 64/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995, clearance to the Naval Vessels is exempted from payment of basic excise duty and hence the refund claims. The refund cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st enrichment since the duty has not been recovered by them. The learned Advocate pleaded that they had continued to supply to the Navy irrespective of the fact that they would get the refund or not in the interest of national security and denial of refund is not correct. Learned Advocate also cited the following judgments to state that doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable for P.S.U.: (i) Karnataka State Agro - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 47 (Kar.) = 2008 (9) S.T.R. 597 (Kar.) (ii) Karnataka State Agro - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 197 (Tri.) (iii) Power Grid Corpn. - 2008 (223) EL.T. 661 (Tri.) (iv) Mafatlal Industries -1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) In addition, it was also pointed out on behalf of the appellants that similar issue was decided i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . BPCL and M/s. HPCL together in the same tanks and were supplying the same to Indian Navy and others and the identity of the goods supplied to Indian Navy was not established. It was further held that the, refund could be sanctioned only if it was established that the same goods, which had suffered duty had been supplied to Indian Navy. The Notification grants full exemption from payment of duty to 'All goods other than Cigarettes', if supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of Indian Navy. There is no condition or procedure prescribed in this regard. The law is settled that if the exemption could not be claimed at the time of supply of goods, it could be claimed later by way of a refund claim - Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. v. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oached the COD for filing appeal, the COD has observed: "The Committee heard the parties to dispute at considerable length. As the impugned goods were directly supplied to the Navy/Naval ships and the IOC had been maintaining the same practice for past many years, the Committee did not find any merit in the appeal of CBEC and accordingly, declined to give permission to CBEC to pursue the same." The COD is a Committee of Secretaries and the fact that they did not allow the department to file appeal but allowed the IOCL to file appeal clearly shows that on the one hand, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) attains finality and on the other hand, the Government intends that this facility should be extended to IOCL. We also agree that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
