2014(11)LCX0111

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE

S/Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) and S.K. Mohanty, Member (J)

JET DRILLING (S) PVT. LTD.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & S.T., VISAKHAPATNAM

Final Order No. 22371/2014, dated 25-11-2014 in Application No. C/Stay/23111/2014 in C/22681/2014-DB

Advocated By -

Sim Anil Kumar B., Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri R. Gurunathan, AR,for the Respondent.

[Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. -

On 9-10-2014, the stay application was taken up and the requirement of pre-deposit was waived and stay was allowed and in the order sheet it was recorded that a detailed order to follow. However a memo was filed by the departmental representative on 21-10-2014 pointing out that the appeal had been filed on 6-8-2014 and therefore the appellant should have deposited 7.5% of the duty demanded and there was no need for stay application. Since the order had already been pronounced in the open Court, an interim order was passed on 11-11-2014, the order was recalled and matter was listed for hearing on 25-11-2014.


2. Today when the matter was called, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that appellant has paid 10% of the duty which is required to be paid in accordance with the amended statutory provisions. He also submitted that on the last occasion when the matter was listed and heard, the appeal itself had been allowed and he requests that since a decision had already been taken on the-order sheet on 9-10-2014, the same order can be passed.


3. We find the request to be proper and accordingly we take up the appeal for final decision as requested. The issue involved is the appellant's eligibility for Customs duty exemption under Notification No. 21 /2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. The goods were classified under heading Marine Gas Oil (HSD) provisionally and thereafter the assessment was finalized taking a view that what has been imported by the appellant is LDO and not HSD. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellants submits that the exemption Notification SI. No. 217 under which exemption was claimed provides for exemption to goods specified in List 12 required in connection with petroleum operations and according to Condition No. 32, a certificate is required to be produced. He submits that exemption certificate issued by DG Hydrocarbons gave the description of the goods including the name of the vessel and in the Essentiality Certificate, the authority certified 'fuel' as goods required for petroleum operations. Fuel is a generic term covered under Customs Tariff Heading 2710 of CTA and covers both High Speed Diesel and Light Diesel or for that matter any fuel which is required for running any of the goods specified in the list including the Rig. He submits that whether Marine Gas Oil is HSD or LDO, it is covered by the Essentiality Certificate and therefore exemption is available. On going through the records, we find that only ground on which the exemption has been denied is the ground that the appellants have imported Marine Gas Oil but it has the specification of the LDO and therefore benefit is not available. Since the Essentiality Certificate covers both HSD and LDO, the appellant is eligible for the benefit. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.

(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open Court on 25-11-2014)

Equivalent 2015 (318) ELT 0257 (Tri. - Bang.)