Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Nayara Energy Ltd. Vs C.C. Kandla (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 474 of 2011-DB
Date of Judgement/Order : 06/09/2019
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Nayara Energy Ltd. Vs C.C. Kandla (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

CESTAT Ahmedabad has had held that the catalyst ‘Petromax- MD’, consumed in the final product and not required for setting up of the plant or required for running, repair and maintenance of the plant, was not eligible for the benefit of exemption which provided that the goods should be used in setting up of the crude petroleum refinery. The goods in question were hence denied benefit of Entry No. 45 of List 17 of Sl. No. 228 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT

The brief facts of the case are that the appellants vide Bill of entry no. 005122 dated 12/10/2010 had imported a catalyst called “Petromax-MD” for use in the production of other final product manufactured in FCC unit of its refinery. They claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty available in Sr. No. 228 of notification 21/02-Cus dated 01/03/2002, available to all goods specified in entry no. 45 of List 17. The Adjudicating Authority denied the exemption on the ground that as per the entry of the notification, the goods specified in list 17 required for setting up of Crude Petroleum Refinery is only exempted, whereas the goods in question is a catalyst and the same is not required for setting up of petroleum refinery and the exemption notification is not applicable.

2. Shri Vipin Jain, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that during the relevant period its production capacity has enhanced from 10MMTPA to 16MMTPA and thereafter 220MMTPA. He submits that as law laid down by this Tribunal in the case of MRPL vs CC 2005 (187) ELT 466 (Tribunal) the benefit of Sno. 228 of notification 21/2000-Cus would be available even during the phase where additional units were being installed in an existing refinery. The ration laid down in the said judgment applies in all fours to the facts of the present case, as imports in the present case have been made while their refinery was installing units so as to increase its capacity from 10MMTPA to 16MMTPA and thereafter 220MMTPA. He further submits that as per notification 21/02 list no. 17, which contains various entries from Sno. 1-45, wherein the goods covered under S. no. 1­43 are required to set up for a crude oil refinery and item S. no. 44-45 and those which are required for running, repair and maintenance, both during and after the completion of setting up of the refinery. He submits that the goods imported by them is covered under Sno. 45. He submits that it is a settled law laid down in a catena of decisions that a notification should be read as a whole and the provisions of notifications must be harmonized in a way that no provision is rendered absurd or redundant. In this regard he placed reliance on the following decisions:

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031