2009 (11) TMI 694

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... however, noticed that, in one of these cases there is no quantified demand of duty or penalty (Appeal No. E/268/2008 of M/s. BPCL). The stay application filed in this appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In all other cases, the Commissioner has confirmed demands of duty against the companies and imposed penalties on them. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides we have found a common issue in these cases. The appellants, manufacturers of petroleum products, supplied HSD oil to the Indian Navy, during the relevant periods of disputes, for use by the latter on board their vessels. This supply was effected through pipelines installed and maintained by another oil company, namely, M/s. IOCL. The Indian Navy placed purchase orders ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of such assessment, evidence of co-relation between the goods supplied and the one received on Board the vessels of the Indian Navy Coast Guard/should be established. Learned Counsel for the appellants have relied on this circular and also case law including the afore-cited decision. On the other hand, learned JCDR submits that the binding case law on the point is Leader Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 (212) E.L.T. 168 (S.C.) wherein the benefit of Notification No. 64/95-C.E. was denied to the assessee on the ground that the subject goods were not supplied directly to the Indian Navy but indirectly through certain ship builders. He has also claimed support from Stay Order No. 339/09, dated 28-8-2009 [2009 (248) E.L.....