M/S. O.N.G.C. LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

                                MIS. O.N.G.C. LTD.                                     A
                                   v.
                       COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

                                 AUGUST 24, 2006

                  [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.)                              B


           Customs Act, 1962-3-D Seismic Tapes-Custom duty on-Exemption
    from-By a Notification-Requirement of Essentiality Certificate for availing
    exemption-Possession of Petroleum Exploration Licence was pre-condition            C
    for grant of the Certificate-Late renewal of the licence, but from retrospective
    effect-Due to non-availability of licence, Certificate not granted-After grant
    of licence, fresh application for grant of Certificate in continuance of its
    earlier application-Exemption denied by the Authority as well as Tribunal in
    absence of the Certificate-Certificate produced before this Court after the
    same having been granted-Remission of the case to Tribunal for                     D
    reconsideration in view of the Certificate-Tribunal denied the exemption, not
    accepting the Certificate-On appeal, held: Once licence was renewed and
    the Certificate was issued, conditions precedent for obtaining exemption in
    terms of the Notification, stood satisfied.

         The appellant company was getting done seismic survey for finding             E
    out possibility of oil or gas through another company. The information
    was recorded in 3-D Seismic Tapes. The said Tapes were exempted from
    customs duty in terms of a Notification. For availing exemption, an
    Essentiality Certificate was required to be issued by Directorate General
    of Hydrocarbons. Pre-requisite for grant of such Certificate was a valid           F
    Petroleum Exploration Licence.

          Appellant, even before expiry of the Petroleum Exploration Licence
    had applied for its renewal and the same was issued with retrospective
    effect i.e. from the date of expiry of earlier Licence. After issuance of ·
    Exemption Notification, appellant applied for Essentiality Certificate, but G
    the same was not granted due to absence of the Licence. After grant of
    Licence, appellant again applied for grant of the Certificate with
    retrospective effect. It also sent several reminders.
'
          The said goods were cleared provisionally, but show cause notice,
                                     317                                               H
    318                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A denying the exemption, was issued in view of failure to produce the
    Certificate. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal decided
    the case against the appellant in view of failure to produce the certificate
    before the Tribunal. In appeal to this Court, appellant produced the
    certificate. This Court, remitted the matter to the Tribunal for
B   reconsideration, holding that grant of the Certificate should be treated as
    proof of the fact that appellant fulfilled the condition for obtaining the
    exemption.

          Pursuant to the directions of this Court, Tribunal passed the order
    holding that the Certificate could not be accepted; that the appellant was
C   guilty of concealment of the fact of return of application for grant of the
    Certificate. Tribunal also attributed malice on the part of the Directorate
    General of Hydrocarbons in granting the Certificate. Hence the present
    appeals.

          Allowing the appeals, the Court
D
           HELD: I. The Appellant applied for grant of renewal of the Oil
    Exploration Licence before its expiry. The said renewal has bee.n granted
    with a retrospective effect. In law, thus, the Appellant had been holding a
    valid licence continuously. The factual events of the present case clearly
    show that the appellant's application for grant of Essentiality Certificate
E   by the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons was not entertained in
    absence of renewal of the Licence. The application was returned only for
    that purpose. The appellant filed its application for grant of essentiality
    certificate within two days from the date of grant of the Licence with
    retrospective effect and thereafter sent several reminders. The conduct of
F   the appellant must, therefore, be judged from the factual matrix obtaining
    therein. Appellant did not make any misrepresentation before this Court
    or that the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons had shown any favour
    to it. Once it is held that the Ministry of Petroleum had renewed the
    Licence and the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons had issued the
    Essentiality Certificate, the conditions precedent for obtaining exemption
G   in terms of the exemption notification stood fully satisfied; the appellant
    is entitled to the benefits thereof. [323-C-H; 324-AI

          Commissioner a/Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Tullow India Operations
    Ltd, [20051 13 SCC 789; Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand
    and Ors., [20051 4 SCC 272; Government of India and Ors. v. Indian Tobacco
H   Association, [2005[ 7 SCC 396; Commnr. of Central Excise, Raipur v. Hira
     O.N.G.C. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI (S.B. SINHA, J.] 319

Cement, JT (2006) 2 SC 369 and P.R. Prabhakar v. Commnr. of Income Tax,         A
Coimbatore, (2006) 7 SCALE 191, relied on.

     D. Nataraja Mudaliar v. The State Transport Authority, Madras, AIR
(1979) SC 114, referred to.

      2. It may be true that on the date when the goods were provisionally      B
cleared, the appellant did not have the essentiality certificate with it, but
this Court in its judgment had categorically held that in a case of this
nature, unless a final order of assessment is passed, prnduction of a delayed
essentiality certificate may not come in the way of the importers obtaining
the benefit of the exemption notifications. The Commissioner failed to          C
notice the findings of this Court. It posed unto itself wrong questions. It
did not address itself the issues required to be gone into.
                                                         1322-G-H; 323-A-BI

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1882 of2004.
                                                                                D
     From the Final Order No. C-II/32 l 8-191WZBl2003 dated 9.12.2003 of
the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench
at Mumbai in Appeal Nos. Cll210101 Mum and Cl51/2002 Mum.
                                   WITH
     Civil Appeal No. 854 of 2005.                                              E

     S. Ganesh, Shiv P. Pandey, Kamna Sarhar, Raj Kumar Tanwar and
Rekha Pandey for the Appellant.

     A.K. Ganguly, Rajiv Dutta, M.F. Humayunisa, K. Swami, P.                   F
Parmeswaran and B.K. Prasad for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      S.B. SINHA, J. The Appellant before us is an undertaking wholly
owned and controlled by the Central Government. It obtained the services of     G
Mis. SEDCO Forex Int. Drilling Inc. for exploitation of oil and gas on shore
and off shore. A contract was awarded by it to a company known as Mis.
SEDCO Forex Int. Drilling Inc specializing in finding out the possibility of
oil or gas by carrying out seismic surveys. The information gathered by
reason of such survey was recorded in 3-D Seismic Tapes.
                                                                                H
     A question arose as to whether the same would attract the exemptions
    320                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A from payment of custom duty in tenns of the entries contained in SI. Nos.
    182, 184 and 231 of the notification dated 28.2.1999.

          For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, an essentiality certificate
    was required to be issued by the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons. Pre-
    requisites for grant of such certificate also was a valid. Petroleum Exploration
B   licence.

          The licence granted by the Central Government in favour of the
    Appellant in that behalf was initially valid upto 14.11.1997. The Appellant
    applied for renewal thereof on 7.10.1997. An application for grant of
C   Essentiality Certificate was filed on 5.4.1999. The same was returned to the
    Appellant on 12.04.1999. By an order dated 18.08.2000, the said licence was
    renewed with retrospective effect from 14.11.1997 by the Central Government.
    Immediately, thereafter i.e. on 20th August, 2000, the Appellant filed an
    application for grant of essentiality certificate in continuation of its earlier
    application dated 5.04.1999. It also sent reminders therefor on 26.03.2001,
D   13.04.2001, 27.12.2001and8.07.2003. The Appellant was asked to resubmit
    the application in a new fonnat which requirement was also complied with
    by it on 25.03.2004. In the said application also, the Appellant categorically
    stated that the same was in continuation of its earlier application dated
    5.04.1999 whereafter the essentiality certificate was granted on 26.03.2004.
E
        Admittedly, the said 3-D Seismic Tapes were treated to be the 'goods'
  within the meaning of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The said
  goods were cleared provisionally but in view the fact that the Appellant had
  failed to produce the essentiality certificate, a notice to show cause was
  issued as to why the said data tapes should not be classified under CTH8524.99
F and charged to duty on the basis of the amount paid by the Appellant to the
  said SEDCO.

         The matter ultimately came up before the Customs, Excise and Service
  Tax Appellate Tribunal which was heard along with a similar case of Tullow
G India Operations Ltd. (Tuilow). Whereas Tullow could produce the essentiality
  certificate before the Tribunal, the Appellant could not.

           The matter came up before this Court at the instance of the Appellant.
    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
H   26.3.2004. This Court, opining that grant of essentiality certificate should be
    treated to be a proof of the fact that the Appellants had fulfilled the conditions
          O.N.G.C. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS. MUMBAI [S.B. SINHA, J.] 321

     enabling them to obtain the benefits under the aforementioned exemption           A
     notification, remitted the matter to the Commissioner for consideration thereof
     afresh having regard to the similar directions issued by the Tribunal in the
     case of Tullow.

           Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said directions, the Commissioner
     has passed an order dated 28.2.2006 holding:                                      B
             "I hold that the EC dated 26.3.2004 cannot be accepted and accordingly
             exemption under serial number 182 of notification no. 20/99-Cus
             dated 28.2.1999 (since rescinded), is not available on the data tapes
             imported by Mis ONGC vide Bills of Entry Nos. 9888 dt. 22.6.99            C
             and No. 12443 dt. 28.5.99.

             I, therefore, confirm the duty demand of Rs. 49,68,70, 160 on Mis
             ONGC. Since an amount of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- had already been paid
             by Mis ONGC towards the principal amount on 14.9.2004, the balance
             amount of Rs. 24,68,70,160/- is now payable by them.
                                                                                       D
             Mis ONGC are also liable to pay interest under section 28AB of the
             Customs Act, 1962, which comes to Rs. 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."

           The learned Commissioner in forming the aforementioned opinion              E
     proceeded on the basis that the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons cannot
     be faulted for not disposing of the Appellant's application for grant of the
     Essentiality Certificate within a reasonable time as the application therefor
     had been returned. It further proceeded on the basis that the Appellant is
     guilty of concealment of certain facts, viz., return of the said application in   F
     absence of a valid petroleum exploration licence granted in its favour by the
     Central Government.

           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 Appellant's case bef9re this Court         G
     observing:

                 "In the above background, the EC dated 26.03.2004 cannot be
                 accepted because,

r·               (i) ONGC were not eligible for the EC on the date of impo11 of        H
    322                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A                the data tapes;
                 (ii) 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)

                 (iii) The EC dt. 26.3.2004 was a solicited document, solicited for
B                the sole purpose of winning the case before the Supreme Court.
                 (iv) They had not raised this issue before the CESTA T which is
                 the final authority for going into facts of the case, and
                 (v) ONGC have not approached the Hon'ble Apex Court with
c                clean hands by not disclosing the full facts.

            Another important point to note is that when the imports took place
            in the year 1999 the duty exemption could have been availed by Ml
            s ONGC on the strength of an EC as per the conditions of notification
            No. 20/99-Cus dt 28.2.1999 (Sr. no. 182). However, on the date of
D           the present EC was issued, i.e. 26.3.2004, the notification was no
            longer in existence and had already been rescinded on 1.3.2000 by
            notification no. 22/2000-Cus dated 1.3.2000. A certificate issued under
            a rescinded notification can have no legal sanctity. When the relevant
            notification itself does not exist how can a certificate issued under the
            authority of the said notification have any legal validity? Action taken
E           under a rescinded notification can be saved under a saving clause of
            appropriate legislation; but fresh action cannot be initiated or revived
            under a rescinded notification. (In the case of Tullow India, which
            was also a subject matter before the Apex Court in CA No. 5900 of
            2004, the certificate was produced by them within the validity period
F           of the Customs notification, though whether the certificate produced
            by Tullow India was propt:r/genuine/ valid/ applicable or not is a
            subject matter of separate proceedings)."

          It further opined that another reason why the Appellant disentitled itself
    from grant of the benefit of the said exemption notification was that production
G   of the essentiality certificate was necessary at the time of importation and not
    thereafter.

          The Appellant is a public sector undertaking. The exemption notification
    inter alia was issued in its favour by the Central Government. It may be true
    that on the date when the goods were provisionally cleared the Appellant did
H not have the essentiality certificate with it, but this Court in its judgment
     O.N.G.C. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS. MUMBAI [S.B. S!l<HA. J.] 323

dated 28th October, 2005 since reported in [2005] 13 sec 789 categorically          A
held that in a case of this nature, unless a final order of assessment is passed,
production of a delayed essentiality certificate may not come in the way of
the importers obtaining the benefit of the exemption notifications.

       The Commissioner in passing the impugned order failed to notice the
findings of this Court. It posed unto itself wrong questions. It did not address    B
itself the issues required to be gone into.

        It may be true that grant of the essentiality certificate was itself dependent
 upon the question as to whether the Appellant was possessed of a valid oil
.exploration licence or not. It is, however, equally true that right to renewal C
 of a licence is a valuable right. [See D. Nataraja Mudaliar v. The State
 Transport Authority, Madras, AIR (1979) SC 114] The Appellant applied for
 grant of renewal of the said licence before its expiry. The said renewal has
 been granted with a retrospective effect. In law, thus, the Appellant had been
 holding a valid licence continuously. The factual events as noticed hereinbefore
 clearly show that the Appellant's application for grant of essentiality certificate D
 by the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons was not entertained in absence
 of renewal of the iicence. The application was returned only for that purpose.
 The Appellant filed its application for grant of essentiality certificate within
 two days from the date of grant of the licence with retrospective effect and
 then thereafter sent several reminders. The conduct of the Appellant must,
 therefore, be judged from the factual matrix obtaining therein. We, therefore, E
 are unable to agree with the opinion of the learned Commissioner that the
 Appellant made any misrepresentation before this Court or that the. Directorate
 General of Hydrocarbons had shown any favour to it. Once it is held that the
 Ministry of Petroleum had renewed the licence and the Directorate General
 of Hydrocarbons had issued the essentiality certificate, the conditions precedent p
 for obtaining exemption in terms of the exemption notification stood fully
 satisfied.

       This Court, times without number, has construed such exemption
notifications in liberal manner. [See Commissioner of Customs (Imports),
Mumbai v. Tullow India Operations Ltd., [2005] 13 SCC 789; Sec Tata Iron            G
& Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., [2005] 4 SCC 272;
Government of India and Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association, [2005] 7 SCC
396; Commnr. Of Central Excise, Raipur v. Hira Cement, JT [2006] 2 SC
369 and P.R. Prabhakar v. Commnr. of Income Tax, Coimbatore, (2006) 7
SCALE 191] If, thus, the Appellant was entitled to tlie same, it should not         H
    324                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A be denied the benefit:; thereof. It is directed accordingly.
        We, therefore, do not agree with the findings of the learned
    Commissioner.

          In view of our findings aforementioned, we do not think it necessary
B to advert to the other contentions raised by the Appellant.
         For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order cannot be sustained
    which is set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. No costs.

    K.K.T.                                                       Appeals allowed.