Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad- GST Versus ICRISAT
Central Excise
2018 (5) TMI 864 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 19-4-2018
Appeal No. E/31052-31054/2017 – A/30485-30487/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member (Judicial)
Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant.
Shri S. Thirumalai, Advocate for the Respondent.
[Order per: M. V. Ravindran.]
These three appeals are directed against Orders-in-
Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-001-APP-040, 041 & 042-17-18-ST dated
19.06.2017.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding refund of Central Excise duty paid on various petroleum products which are consumed by the respondent whether it can be refunded or otherwise.
4. Respondent is an organization recognized as an international organization by virtue of Section 3 of the United Nations Act and also extended benefit of Notification No. 108/95-CE dat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he submissions made in the departmental application and those made by the respondent in writing as well as those made during the personal hearing held in the matter. The issue for decision is whether the respondent being an international organization is entitled to exemption from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 108/95-C.E on HSD obtained and to the refund of duty of excise paid on such HSD used by them since they had paid duty on them at the time of clearance from IOCL. As regards facts it is not is dispute that ICRISAT is an international organization notified by the Government of India in terms of Section 3 of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 and that they are entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. The exemption granted under the said Notification No. 108/95-C.E is with respect to all goods falling under the schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act when supplied to the United Nations or to an international organizatio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
arded as raw material/consumable for the business carried on by the respondent in the field of research and related activities mandated under its incorporation and not solely for use as fuel in the motor vehicles maintained by them. Keeping in view the intention of the Notification which is to extend the benefit of exemption to goods supplied to international organizations, I am of the considered view that the exemption provided has to be made effective by way of the refund mechanism applicable to such organization because of the administrative difficulty encountered in extending the exemption at the original stage at IOCL as has been recognised in the CBEC communication F.No. 261/27/2/2006-CX8 dated 14.08.2008. In this connection, it is observed that in terms of the CBEC circulars F.No. III/7/76- CX3 dt. 20.4.1976 and F. No. 111/5/79-CX3 dt. 19.10.1979 a restriction in terms of quantity and the amount of duty eligible to be refunded on petroleum products has been sought to be enforced
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
restrict the quantity of petroleum products to 350 litres per month would be applicable to the respondent in view of the fact that the said circular as presented in the Public Notice issued by Delhi Central Excise Collectorate available on record refers in its title to the UN and its agencies. The respondent being a notified agency under Section 3 of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 is eligible to the exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E but restricted by the instructions issue by CBEC on petrol/HSD etc. Such restriction of quantity of 350 per month per vehicle would, however, apply only to the official vehicles of the respondent as intended in the said circular but not other vehicles and uses, in view of my decision above on fuel consumed by respondent in research work etc. At the same time, it is observed form my reading of the CBEC circular F.No. 111/5/79-CX3 dt. 19.10.1979 relied upon in the departmental application that the restriction of the amount
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ies) Act, 1947 they are entitled to exemption from payment of excise duties on various items for official use in terms of the international conventions.
7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the respondent is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E and consequently for refund of Central Excise duty paid on the fuel used for undertaking research work and other allied activities. However, as regards the quantity of fuel consumed by the respondent with reference to running and maintenance of official vehicles used by them they shall be entitled to refund of the Central Excise duty paid only on 350 litres per month per such vehicle.
It can be seen from the above reproduced findings of the First Appellate Authority, that he has placed reliance on Circular F. No.111/5/79-CX3 dated 19.10.1979 for granting relief to the respondent before him. I find that, though First Appellate Authority did not refer to Board Circular dated 14.08.2008 but to a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ies cannot supply the goods from refinery to ICRISAT as these are transferred through a pipeline and not in a tanker. Therefore benefit of Notification cannot be extended while clearing goods from factory. The provisions of refund for goods supplied to diplomatic mission has also been referred. Accordingly, a proposal has been received by the Board from Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam for providing a refund mechanism in this case.
3. The matter has been examined. As per Section 11B (1) a refund claim is to be submitted in the prescribed format and shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 12A) as the applicant may finish to establish that the amount of duty of excise in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by him and the incidence of such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person. It the duty is determined to be refundable pursuant to a claim made by a Buy
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ISAT from the duty paid stock.
It can be seen from the above reproduced Board Circular, ICRISAT has to satisfy some conditions for refund Central Excise duty paid on petroleum products procured by them. It is not disputed in these appeals ICRISAT had complied with the conditions in the refund claims filed for as per Board Circular dated 14.08.2008, I find both the lower authorities were correct coming to a conclusion with the respondent herein is eligible for the refund of an amount paid towards Central Excise duty on the fuel consumed by them during the relevant period in question. In my view concurrent findings of facts need to be upheld and I do so.
5. In view of the foregoing, the appeals filed by the Revenue are devoid of merits and are rejected, the impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference and appeals stands rejected. Cross objections filed by the respondent being support of the Order-in-Appeal is also disposed of.
(Order dictated and pronounce
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =