Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Oil And Natural Gas Commission vs Commr. Of Central Excise And Customs on 26 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(72)ECC192
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. This appeal was argued by Shri Nitin Vatkar Ld. Advocate Revenue was represented by Shri K.M. Patwari Ld. DR.
2. M/s. ONGC, the appellants produced crude oil and paid cess in terms of the Oil Industry Development Act, 1974. This crude is supplied by them to various refineries. The crude may contain water and sediments. The quantity of such impurities is assessed by the refinery at the point of receipt of the crude by using an autosampler. The documentation consisted of a report showing receipt of crude oil by the refinery. The reports would show gross volume and weight of the crude the volume and weight of the impurities and the net volume and weight of the crude. On receipt of the fortnightly report ONGC paid vide TR6 Challans the leviable cess. This was so done for the crude produced during the months of June and July 1988. Subsequently, on 11.9.99 the recipient refinery issued a final certificate of receipt of the crude for these two month. The certificate showed less receipt of crude to the extent of 7743.671 tonnes on the ground of higher volume of impurities. On the strength of this communication ONGC filed refund claim on 20.9.90. The Assistant Collector dismissed the claim on ground of limitation prescribed in Section 11B of the Act. The Collector (Appeals) having upheld this order, the present appeal has been filed.
3. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in between the first acceptance reports and the issue of the certificate dated 11.9.90 substantial correspondence was exchanged between ONGC and IOC. His plea is that the final analysis would show that the appellant had paid cess on that quantity which was not actually received. The refund claim was filed on this ground.
4. We have considered the various submissions made by Ld. Counsel. It is not disputed that the claim was filed after the period of limitation. Ld. Counsel has relied upon a number of Judgments. We find that the appellant cannot draw any substance or force for any of the citation. Shri Vatkar would have us believe that the refund claim arose out of extraordinary circumstances and therefore deserves to be considered. We find no merit in this plea. Shri Vatkar relies upon under Article 216 of the Constitution. We are not the appropriate authority for relief under the Constitution.
5. On careful examination of the pleas and the material submitted, we find that the orders of the Collector (Appeals) were correct in law. The appeal is therefore dismissed.