TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tay Order No. S/339/2009-WZB/C-I/(EB) - Dated:- 28-8-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko and A.K. Srivastava, JJ. Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Mahajan, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. ORDER After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the ld. Commissioner demanded duty of over Rs. 3.85 crores from M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL for short) on HSD oil sold by them to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL for short) during the period of dispute. The Commissioner denied them the benefit of Notification No. 64/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95. This Notification, at serial no. 3 of the table annexed thereto, granted exemption from payment of duty of excise on all goods other than cigarettes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat this amendment has only prospective effect and therefore, prior to 1-11-2007, the benefit of exemption was not admissible to HSD oil procured by IOCL from HPCL and supplied as stores for consumption on board the Indian Navy s vessels. The Id. counsel has claimed that the above amendment to Notification 64/95-C.E., should be treated as clarificatory and retrospective. We are not able to accept this argument. It is trite law that an exemption Notification needs to be strictly construed. On this principle, we hold that the benefit of exemption under entry no. 3 of the table annexed to Notification 64/95 can be extended only to direct supplies of stores to the Indian Navy for consumption on board their vessels and cannot be allowed to indir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Notification 64/95-C.E., granted exemption under entry no. 3 of the Table annexed thereto to goods supplied directly to the Indian Navy. The Id. counsel has also claimed support from a decision of this Tribunal viz. Goa Paints Allied Products v. CCE - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 489 (Tri.-Mum.) which was affirmed by the apex court vide Goa Paints Allied Products v. CCE - 2001 (129) E.L.T. A308 (S.C.). The facts of the said case are different from those of the instant case and, moreover, the issue considered therein was not the same as the one which is being agitated before us. 3. In the result, we have not found prima facie case for the appellant against the demand of duty. They have no financial hardships either. The appellant should theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
