9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducts. They have a refinery at Visakhapatnam where they produce these products and store them in a bonded tank. They also purchase similar products from other manufacturers such as M/s Reliance Petroleum Ltd (RPL) and store the duty paid products also in the same tank. They have obtained permission from the department for having a mixed bonded tank. Since the products are mixed, there is no physical separation between identical products manufactured by them at Visakhapatnam and those which have been bought from other refineries. 3. However, in their ERP system in their computers they maintained a separate account of the goods which have been manufactured by them and those which have been bought by them and sold. Thus, there is a virtual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund of duty paid at the refinery. However, such accounting mistake should not deprive them of the benefit of the exemption notification. He would submit that the exemption notification was available to the supplies made to the buyer and this fact has not been disputed by the department. In fact, in other supplies to this buyer, they have been availing benefit of this exemption notification. In this case, instead of debiting the quantity of HSD supplied to the buyer from their product, they have debited it from the bought out item in their ERP system. Had they debited this quantity from the goods manufactured by them, they would have been entitled to refund. However, they debited this quantity from the HSD bought from M/s RPL. He argues th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that the refund claim was filed with certain documents and the supporting documents which did not substantiate the claim of refund and therefore the same has been rejected. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that the ER-1 returns filed by the appellant do not reflect that the goods in question were supplied to M/s TIL. Therefore, the rejection was accurate. Even if the appellant had supplied the bought out items from M/s RPL, the exemption notification was available to either the manufacturer i.e., M/s RPL or to the user i.e., M/s TIL. A plain reading of the exemption notification 108/1995 does not show that any trader who supplies goods to the eligible organisations is entitled to the exemption and can claim refund. In the absen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund was claimed in respect of goods which were not manufactured by them and they were also not reflected in the ER-1 returns. The original authority cannot be faulted for finding so nor can the first appellate authority for upholding the rejection on this ground. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even if the goods were supplied, as accounted for by them, out of the supplied of HSD manufactured by M/s RPL, they are still entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification as the goods have ultimately been supplied to M/s TIL, who are eligible under the exemption notification. The claim of refund in the application was not of duty paid by M/s RPL. Further, a plain reading of the exemption notification shows th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
