9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal against the said final order to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. However, there is no stay of operation of the Tribunal’s order. In these circumstances, respectfully, following the ratio of the earlier order, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order with consequential relief. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L through road tankers. M/s. ONGC therefore desired to use the said facilities for transportation of its crude oil. For this purpose, the appellants entered into a contract with M/s. ONGC for oil transfer services. This contract recognizes the transaction between the parties on a principal to principal basis. The oil from different installations of ONGC would reach Surasaniyanam through road tankers will be unloaded from the road tankers and will be loaded into a separate tank, exclusively meant for M/s. ONGC. At the end of the day, after allowing oil to settle for sufficient time, measurement of quantity, sampling for physical parameters is done by a third party surveyor in the presence of a representative of M/s. ONGC and appellant. The o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of show-cause notice issued to ONGC also the demand was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.3/ 2004, dated 11-1-2004. The appellants filed appeal against both the orders. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in- Appeal Nos.1 & 2/2006, dated 30-1-2006 and Order-in-Appeal No. 2/2005, dated 30-11-2005 confirmed the Orders-in-Original. The Order-in-Appeal Nos.1 & 2/2006, dated 30-1-2006 dealt with the demand raised against M/s. ONGC as well as demand raised against the appellants. Aggrieved by the Order-in- Appeal, the appellants filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Bangalore and this Bench issued the Final Order Mos. 578 & 579/2008, dated 29-4-2008 reported in 2008-TIOL-1326-CESTAT-Bang. allowing the appeals in favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C & F Agent. It was held that in the appellants' case the relationship between the appellants and ONGC are on a principal to principal basis and the appellants do not do either the work of clearing or the work of forwarding. That the appellants are only storing crude received on behalf of the ONGC and then through pipeline transfer it to the vessels, so the Bill of Lading is issued by ONGC and the consignor i.e., HPCL refinery. Therefore, the appellants do not play any role in delivering the goods to consignees. That the services rendered by the appellants do not fall under C & F Agents services. That as regards limitation the appellants were under the bona fide impression that they do not come under the category of C & F services. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
