2017 (4) TMI 490

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Navy. The appellant supplied the goods to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Wadala(M/s. IOCL(W). The IOCL(W) supplied the part of the goods to Indian Navy under exemption under Sr. No. 3 of Notification No.64/95-CE dated 16/1/1995, which exempts the goods supplied at stores for consumption onboard Navy vessel or coast guard. The issue was decided against the appellant and aggrieved by the said orders appellants are before this Tribunal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that issue in hand had been had been disposed by this Tribunal in case of Indian oil corporation ltd versus Commr. of C. Ex., Rajkot[2000(229) ELT 100(Tri.)]. He pointed out that their case is factually different from that case and therefore no reliance on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id decision is distinguishable. He further re the decision of this Tribunal in case of GE India Industrial Ltd Vs. CCE[2016(335) ELT 103(T)] and in case of CCE Vs. Wartsila(I) Pvt Ltd[2016(335) ELT 320(T)]. He pointed out that in these decisions, the decision of Apex Court in case of Leader Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner[2005(192) ELT 646] has been distinguished. 3. Ld. A.R. relies on the impugned order. 4. We have gone through rivals' submissions. 5. It is seen that Tribunal in case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (supra) has held against the appellant while interpreting the same identical notification no. 64/95 in respect of consumer goods sought to be supplied as ship storages or vessel of Indian Navy. Ld. Counsel sought t....