9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eum products was withdrawn by issue of Notification No. 17/2004-CE (NT) dt. 04/09/2004. After such date, petroleum products were to be cleared from the refinery only on payment of duty. 2. The dispute pertains to the period immediately after withdrawal of the warehousing provisions. During the period 06/09/2004 to 31/03/2005, the appellant, from Haldia Terminal, made the following supplies:- (i) Supply to Indian Navy/Coast Guard. Such supplies were entitled to the clearance at 'nil' rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 64/95-CE as amended by Notification No. 25/2002 and 16/2003 (with effect from 01/03/2003). The clearances at 'nil' rate of duty were subjected to satisfaction of the conditions specified in the Notification. (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our attention to the supply order placed on the appellant by M/s. Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Ltd. (where warships are built for the Ministry of Defense). He specifically, drew our attention to the fact that such supply orders have indicated Excise Duty at "nil". As such, he submitted that the appellant has not recovered any Excise Duty from Indian Navy/Coast Guard. (iii) Finally, he submitted that the appellant was entitled to the refund. The ground of unjust enrichment cannot be held against them. 5. The Ld. DR justified the rejection of refund with the following submissions:- (i) He submitted that the Show Cause Notice dt. 27/03/2006 was issued proposing rejection of refund claim citing a number of reasons including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as required under Notification No. 64/95. Further, perusal of a sample supply order indicates that it does not include the element of Excise Duty. These lead us to the prima facie conclusion that the supplies made by the appellant to Indian Navy/Coast Guard/Ship Stores are entitled to the benefit of 'nil' rate of duty. Further, the supply order indicates that the terms of supply are without Excise Duty. This clears the appellant's position on unjust enrichment also. 8. From the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals), we are unable to come to the conclusion whether all the relevant records as indicated above have been verified. Both the Authorities below have indicated however that the proof of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
