TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Oil - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20236/2014 - Final Order No. A/30779/2016 - Dated:- 29-8-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member(Judicial) and Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent(AR) for the respondent. ORDER The facts of the case as put forth by the appellant are summarized as follows: 1.1. The Appellant is an oil field services company engaged in on-shore and off-shore petroleum operations which included oil, natural gas and allied products. The Appellant was awarded a contract by M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) for conducting oil exploration operation in Krishna Godavari basin. The Appellant is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02(Sl.No.217). 1.5. On import, the goods were cleared after assessment of the Bill of Entry on provisional basis. Samples were drawn in respect of the consumables on board the vessel. The test report stated that the sample has the characteristics of Light Diesel Oil (LDO). 1.6. Relying upon the test report, Bill of Entries were assessed under heading 27101930 and to deny the benefit of exemption under Notification 21/2002-Cus for the entire quantity of MGO on the only ground that, the certificate of DGHC issued for duty-free import was for Marine Gas Oil whereas the goods imported was LDO. 1.7. Original authority thereafter confirmed the demand vide Order in Original dated 09 01.2013. on appeal , Commissioner (A) vide the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sen to show us that the product is LDO. In the absence of a specific report from the Chemical Examiner that the product is not MGO which was what required by the Custom House, it cannot be said that the Chemical Examiner s report supports the case of the Custom House. There is no evidence to show that the product is not MGO. The Chemical Examiner s report also as observed by us does not support the case of the appellant. At this juncture, the learned AR submitted that the appellants have not challenged the test report at all. In fact even though the tests were conducted much earlier the results of the samples were communicated to the appellants only in 2012, the learned counsel drew our attention to a letter written by the appellants to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings and conclusions of the Order of lower authority, however conceded that the case law in the Transocean Discoverer case is on identical facts. 5. We find that the facts of the above cited case law are indeed on all fours with that of the appeal before us. Hence we have no hesitation in following the above cited decision in the Transocean Discoverer and CGG Marine cases and hold that what was imported was Marine Gas Oil and not Light Diesel Oil and hence the benefit of exemption under CN 21/2002, Sl.No.217, against the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons, will be available to said Marine Gas Oil. 6. Appeal allowed, with consequential reliefs, if any, as per law. (Pronounced and dictated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
