MANGALORE REFINERIES AND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is a PSU Unit. They have obtained clearance from the Committee of Secretaries for pursuing these appeals. These appeals arise from Order -in -original No. 11/2005 dated 8.4.2005 and Order in Appeal No. 264/2005 dated 10.11.2005.

(2.) THE appellants had manufactured and removed certain quantity of Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) and raw naptha used for flushing operations (FO), HSD and MS through pipelines situated outside the factory premises for the purpose of drainage. Such removals of pipelines were considered as removal under Rule 4 without payment of duty and hence, demands were raised. The appellant's contention was that there was no removal while using these materials for flushing the pipelines, as these materials were received back in the factory to the crude tanks whenever single line is used for multi product transaction. This operation is very much necessary as otherwise the mixed products, if they are pumped to the ship directly, through the pipelines, are likely to contaminate the main consignment which will become liable for rejection. However, their plea was rejected and the demands in terms of the impugned order were confirmed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel submits that this very issue came up for consideration in initially in the case of CCE v. Cochin Refineries Ltd. 2002 (117) ELT 112 (T), wherein the Tribunal after detailed consideration upheld the assessee's plea and the Revenue's appeal was rejected. He also relied on the ruling of Delhi Bench rendered in the case of Chennai Petrochem Corporation Ltd. v. CC, Chennai 2005 (192) ELT 973 (Tri. -Del.) wherein the cited judgment was applied and assessee's appeal was allowed. He furnishes the copy of both these orders.