Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 26 March, 2009

Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair, K.Surendra Mohan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

C.E.Appeal.No. 4 of 2008()


1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :26/03/2009

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                         K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
               ....................................................................
                         C.E. Appeal No.4 of 2008 &
                          C.M. Appl. No.219 of 2008
               ....................................................................
                Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

We heard Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. We find that the appeal is filed against order of the Tribunal holding that respondent has no duty liability as the clearances were of Naphtha to Power Plants which is exempt from duty under Notification 6/02. The only reason for raising the demand is withdrawal of warehousing facility. We are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that withdrawal of warehousing facility does not attract any duty which is seen clarified by the Board by their letter dated 4.9.2004. Since admittedly the goods cleared are exempt from duty by Notification referred to in the Tribunal's order, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the department. However, since Standing Counsel submitted that this fact requires verification, we leave freedom to the appellant to move for review, if the position is different or in other words, if any 2 quantity of Naftha removed is not exempt from duty, the department is free to move this court in review. Reserving this right, we dismiss the delay condonation petition and consequently the appeal.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms