ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. The matter was called. No one is present for the appellants M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. The matter relates to the refund of duty paid of Rs. 30,5907-. The notice for today’s hearing had already been served on the appellants on 5-3-1997. There is no response. There is no request for adjournment.
2. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, SDR and have gone through the facts of the case. We find that the matter relates to the availment of exemption notification No. 211/85-C.E., dated 25-4-1985 (as amended) under this notification all goods that were required to be used in connection with oil exploration activity by ONGC or Oil India Ltd. were exempted subject to the following conditions : –
(i) That before clearance of the said goods, a certificate from Oil & Natural Gas Commissioner or Oil India Ltd., as the case may be, to the effect that such goods are required to be used in connection with their Oil exploration activity is produced to the Proper Officer.
(ii) That such certificate of evidence as may be required by the Proper Officer for verifying that the said goods have been used in connection with Oil exploration activity is furnished.
(iii) That is relation to the exemption under the said notification the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is followed.
3. The appellants did not avail of the said exemption. They did not follow the procedure as set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. After clearing the goods on payment of appropriate duty, they filed ‘refund claim’. The goods involved were cast steel gate valves. The Assistant Collector had rejected their refund claim on the ground that they had not filed the required certificate before the clearances were effected. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay had observed that notification No. 211/86-C.E. envisaged exemption provided the conditions laid down therein were fulfilled. For availing the exemption, it was a pre-requisite that a certificate had to be filed with the proper Central Excise Officer before the clearances of the goods and further the procedure under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules had to be followed. The appellants had neither produced the requisite certificate and had not followed the Chapter X Procedure.
4. We find that the exemption notification was conditional and the exemption was available only when the goods were required to be used in connection with Oil Exploration activity by ONGC or Oil India Ltd. As the exemption was conditional, the procedure under Chapter X was required to be followed. Under Chapter 10 Procedure, the applicant, who wanted to avail of the benefit of exemption notification had to file application in Form AL 6 to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities and had to obtain L-6 licence. Thereafter on the request of the applicant, CT-2 certificate had to be issued by the concerned Central Excise Range. It is on the strength of such CT-2 certificate that the goods will move from the originating factory under the relevant exemption. The copies of the CT-2 certificate had to be filed with the relevant monthly returns. It is further provided under Chapter X Procedure that in case the goods are not satisfactorily accounted for then the duty will be chargeable.
5. It is seen that with regard to the conditional exemption notification of the nature, as in the proceedings before us, the procedural requirements are as essential pre-requisite and no refund could be sanctioned in the absence of the required compliance of the exemption notification.
6. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.