TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Appellate Tribunal, aggrieved by an order of adjudication passed by the Commissioner on 6th February 2008 confirming a demand of duty of Rs.3.85 crores. An application for waiver of pre-deposit was filed before the Tribunal. By its order dated 11th September 2009 [2009 (248) E.L.T. 577 (Tribunal)] the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1 crore within a period of four weeks and to report compliance. 3. The issue which arises before the Tribunal in the appeal pertains to an Exemption Notification (No. 64/95-C.E.), dated 16th March, 1995. Under Serial No. 3 of the Notification, an exemption is provided in respect of all goods other than cigarettes 'if supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal, in which an application for stay was moved. Stay has been granted subject to a deposit of an amount of Rs. 1 crore, by the impugned order. 5. The grievance of the petitioner before the Court is that the same member of the Tribunal, who passed the impugned order dated 11th September 2009 subsequently passed an order on 20th November 2009 [2010 (250) E.L.T. 218 (Tribunal)] in a batch of cases involving the same question, by which a complete waiver of pre-deposit was granted, subject to the filing of a bond. As a matter of fact, it may also be noted that among the stay applications, which were disposed of by the Tribunal on 20th November 2009 were those arising from appeals filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited as well ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o force, which inserted Entry 3A in the Table annexed to the earlier Notification No. 64/95-C.E. By the new entry, fuels falling under Chapter heading 27.10 of the Tariff Schedule have been exempted from the payment of the duty of excise if procured by IOCL from any other manufacturer and supplied as stores for consumption on board a vessel of the Indian Navy or Coast Guard, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions. The Tribunal however was of the view that the Notification would apply with effect from 1st November 2007 whereas the dispute in the present case relates to a period prior to 1st November 2007. The Tribunal has also took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Leader Engineering Works v. CCE - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 168 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in Leader Engineering Works (supra) has been distinguished on the ground that whereas in the case of the petitioner, HSD is being supplied to the Navy through a continuous pipeline, in Leader Engineering Works, the stores were supplied by the assessee to the Indian Navy through Ship Builders. We find that there is a palpable inconsistency on the part of the Tribunal in dealing with stay applications arising out of diverse appeals. The inconsistency is even more pronounced having regard to the fact that the same judgment of the Supreme Court in Leader Engineering Works has been construed differently by the same member of the Tribunal in the orders dated 11th September 2009 and 20th November 2009. 9. The Tribunal, first and foremost, ....