Case: Union Of India Vs. Burmashell Oil Storage Ltd

The question raised in this appeal is the entitlement of the rebate of duty on the excisable goods in question exported as ships stores in consumption on board vessels bound for any foreign port. For this the question is, what meaning to be given to the expression vessel board for any foreign port and the expression ocean going vessel on foreign run used in the Government notification dated 5-4-1949 under clause 12 of Central Excise Rules and Notification dated 9-10-1967 issued under Rule 8(1) aforesaid and Section 3(3) of the Mineral Products (Additional Duties of Excise and Customs) Act, 1958. The said later notification in question viz. 9th October, 1967 is regarding partial exemptioin of additional duty of furnance oil supplied to ocean going vessel on a foreign run.2.The fact is that vessel agent presented to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. that British Cannet was proceeding from the port of Bombay to a port in the Persian Gulf Town Bander Malashahr via Kandla. At the instance of agent thus Corporation supplied 164.990 Kilo liters of furnace oil.3.The respondent claimed exemption from payment of basic duty and partial exemption of additional duty on the basis of the aforesaid Notifications. The authorities rejected the claims of the respondent holding that the ships cannot be treated as foreign going vessels as ships loaded with mineral oil was used for the purpose of discharge at coastal ports only viz. from Bombay to Kandla.4.Aggrieved by the same, a Writ Petition was filed by the respondent before the learned single Judge who set aside the order and allowed the writ petition granting exemption as claimed by the respondent. The appeal filed before the Division Bench of the High Court was also dismissed. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal is preferred. The present case seems to be of the year 1984. No stay order was granted. Further on the fact recorded by the High Court :"... after the petition was disposed of by the trial court and the appeal was filed by the original petitioner Company which was a foreign company was taken over by the Government of India and today the petitioner are the fully owned Government-Company. Therefore, the fight is purely academic between Government of India and its own Company." * and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we think it is not a fit case to go into the question raised in this appeal.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]The present case seems to be of the year 1984. No stay order was granted. Further on the fact recorded by the High Court :"... after the petition was disposed of by the trial court and the appeal was filed by the original petitioner Company which was a foreign company was taken over by the Government of India and today the petitioner are the fully ownedTherefore, the fight is purely academic between Government of India and its own Company."the facts and circumstances of the present case, we think it is not a fit case to go into the question raised in this appeal.