2017 (4) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri.TC Nair, Advocate for appellant Shri.VK Agarwal, Addl. Comm. (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a refinery engaged in the manufacture of High Speed Diesel (HSD) falling under Chapter heading 27.10 of the CETA. They have cleared the said goods at nil rate of duty in terms of Notification No.64/95-CE dated 16/03/1995. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmits that the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the entire quantity of removal of HSD. Whereas the substantial quantity was supplied for consumption on foreign going vessel. He submits that in respect of such supplies, there is an exemption which has been clarified by the Board in the Circular No.605/42/2001 dated 29/11/2001. He produced certificate from Indian Oil Corporation wherei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vessel was not considered. Therefore, the matter may be remanded to the original authority for correct quantification of the duty demand. He further submits that the adjudicating authority imposed penalty which is not imposable for the reason that the issue involved is of interpretation of notification. The appellant is a Government of India undertaking, therefore no suppression of fact is involve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts in their own case as reported in 2014 (301) ELT 554 (Tri-Mum). Accordingly, Notification No.64/95-CE is not available to the appellants. The only issue remains to be decided by us is that the re-quantification of the demand in the light of the submission of the learned Counsel that on part of the quantity demand was confirmed, which was supplied to the foreign going vessel, which is not dutiab....