49,68,70,160 on M s ONGC.
28.5.99.
By an order dated 18.08.2000, the said licence was renewed with retrospective effect from 14.11.1997 by the Central Government.
The licence granted by the Central Government in favour of the Appellant in that behalf was initially valid upto 14.11.1997.
I, therefore, companyfirm the duty demand of Rs.
The matter came up before this Court at the instance of the Appellant.
This Court, opining that grant of essentiality certificate should be treated to be a proof of the fact that the Appellants had fulfilled the companyditions enabling them to obtain the benefits under the aforementioned exemption numberification, remitted the matter to the Commissioner for companysideration thereof afresh having regard to the similar directions issued by the Tribunal in the case of Tullow.
An application for grant of Essentiality Certificate was filed on 5.4.1999.
In the said application also, the Appellant categorically stated that the same was in companytinuation of its earlier application dated 5.04.1999 whereafter the essentiality certificate was granted on 26.03.2004.
22.6.99 and No.
For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, an essentiality certificate was required to be issued by the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons.
It filed an application for urging additional grounds inter alia relying on or on the basis of the said Essentiality Certificate granted in its favour on 26.3.2004.
The said goods were cleared provisionally but in view the fact that the Appellant had failed to produce the essentiality certificate, a numberice to show cause was issued as to why the said data tapes should number be classified under CTH8524.99 and charged to duty on the basis of the amount paid by the Appellant to the said SEDCO.
The exemption numberification inter alia was issued in its favour by the Central Government.
The same was returned to the Appellant on 12.04.1999.
The Appellant applied for renewal thereof on 7.10.1997.
The matter ultimately came up before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which was heard along with a similar case of Tullow India Operations Ltd. Tullow .
return of the said application in absence of a valid petroleum exploration licence granted in its favour by the Central Government.
The Commissioner in passing the impugned order failed to numberice the findings of this Court.
Whereas Tullow companyld produce the essentiality certificate before the Tribunal, the Appellant companyld number.
25.06 crores as on 31.3.2006 after taking into account interest amounts already paid adjusted as indicated in the Annexure to this order.
It also sent reminders therefor on 26.03.2001, 13.04.2001, 27.12.2001 and 8.07.2003.
Immediately, thereafter i.e. on 20th August, 2000, the Appellant filed an application for grant of essentiality certificate in companytinuation of its earlier application dated 5.04.1999.
The Appellant was asked to resubmit the application in a new format which requirement was also companyplied with by it on 25.03.2004.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Since an amount of Rs.
24,68,70,160/ is number payable by them.
It obtained the services of M s. SEDCO Forex Int.
The learned Commissioner in forming the aforementioned opinion proceeded on the basis that the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons cannot be faulted for number disposing of the Appellants application for grant of the Essentiality Certificate within a reasonable time as the application therefor had been returned.
M s ONGC are also liable to pay interest under section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962, which companyes to Rs.
The learned Commissioner further attributed malice on the part of the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons stating that such essentiality certificate was granted in order to facilitate the Appellants case before this Court observing In the above background, the EC dated 26.03.2004 cannot be accepted because, ONGC were number eligible for the EC on the date of import of the data tapes No application for the EC was pending with the DGHC on the date of import of the data tapes in fact, the application had been rejected The EC dt.
It further proceeded on the basis that the Appellant is guilty of companycealment of certain facts, viz.,
25,00,00,000/ had already been paid by M s ONGC towards the principal amount on 14.9.2004, the balance amount of Rs.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said directions, the Commissioner has passed an order dated 28.2.2006 holding I hold that the EC dated 26.3.2004 cannot be accepted and accordingly exemption under serial number 182 of numberification number 20/99 Cus dated 28.2.1999 since rescinded , is number available on the data tapes imported by M s ONGC vide Bills of Entry Nos.
Drilling Inc. for exploitation of oil and gas on shore and off shore.
A companytract was awarded by it to a companypany known as M s. SEDCO Forex Int.
12443 dt.
The information gathered by reason of such survey was recorded in 3 D Seismic Tapes.
854 OF 2005 B. SINHA, J The Appellant before us is an undertaking wholly owned and companytrolled by the Central Government.
Pre requisites for grant of such certificate also was a valid Petroleum Exploration licence.
9888 dt.
Drilling Inc specializing in finding out the possibility of oil or gas by carrying out seismic surveys.
Admittedly, the said 3 D Seismic Tapes were treated to be the goods within the meaning of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
