Writ Petition Nos. 2078-2079 of 2013. Case: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition Nos. 2078-2079 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri M.H. Patil with Ms. Aparna Hirandgi i/b. Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advs. and For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kantharia i/b. Ms. Annie Fernandes, Advs. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. |
| Issue | Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Rules 18, 19; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | 2014 (310) ELT 708 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | August 04, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
These two petitions are by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
-
In Writ Petition No. 2078 of 2013, the petitioners state that they have an Excise registration in their favour and engaged in warehousing and dealing in petroleum products falling in Chapter 27 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
-
The petitioners supplied the duty paid LSHF HSD (Low Sulphur High Flash High Speed Diesel) to foreign going vessel and following export under bond procedure inasmuch as filing of ARE-1, shipping bill, the submission of proof of export, etc. inadvertently. In other words, though the petitioners claim that they are entitled to rebate of duty in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 inadvertently they filed documents which indicated that the goods were cleared without payment of export duty. In other words, the application for refund/rebate ought to have been processed in terms of Rule 18 but was erroneously treated as made under Rule 19 and rejected throughout.
-
An attempt is made before us to show that the other goods were supplied to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The petitioners have realized that LSHF HSD supplied to foreign going vessels was actually duty paid. That is how the refund applications were made and invoking Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioners assert that the Rule 18 was invoked and that is why various documents evidencing duty paid character of goods have been submitted. However, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner did not accept the stand of the petitioners and instead issued show cause notices. The show cause notices were resisted but the petitioners were served a Order-in-Original dated 15th December, 2009 rejecting their rebate claim. There are three orders to this effect and against which appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). He rejected the appeals by the order dated 16th December, 2010. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners filed two separate Revision Applications before the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) but the Revisional Authority also rejected the Revision Applications.
-
Mr. Patil appearing in support of these petitions submitted that the authorities proceeded on the footing that the applications have been made in cases of goods which were exported without payment of duty. Meaning thereby, Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules was applied. That contemplates excisable goods being exported...
To continue reading
Request your trial