http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1882 of 2004

PETITIONER: M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd

RESPONDENT: Commnr. Of Customs, Mumbai

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/08/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2005

S.B. SINHA, J :

       The Appellant before us is an undertaking wholly owned and  controlled by the Central Government.  It obtained the services of M/s.  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 M/s.  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.   

       A question arose as to whether the same would attract the  exemptions from payment of custom duty in terms of the entries  contained in Sl. 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 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 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, 13.04.2001, 27.12.2001 and  8.07.2003.  The Appellant was asked to resubmit the application in a new  format 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.

       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 and charged to duty on the basis of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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 India Operations Ltd. (Tullow).  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 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 enabling them to obtain the benefits under the  aforementioned exemption 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:

"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 M/s ONGC vide Bills of  Entry Nos. 9888 dt. 22.6.99 and No. 12443 dt.  28.5.99.

I, therefore, confirm the duty demand of Rs.  49,68,70,160 on M/s ONGC.  Since an amount of  Rs. 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. 24,68,70,160/- is now  payable by them.

M/s 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  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 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 before  this Court observing:

"In the above background, the EC dated  26.03.2004 cannot be accepted because, (i)     ONGC were not eligible for the EC on  the date of import of 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)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

(iii)   The EC dt. 26.3.2004 was a solicited  document, solicited for the sole purpose  of winning the case before the Supreme  Court. (iv)    They had not raised this issue before the  CESTAT which is the final authority for  going into facts of the case, and (v)     ONGC have not approached the Hon’ble  Apex Court with 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 M/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 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  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 of the Customs notification, though  whether the certificate produced by Tullow India  was proper/ 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 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 not have the essentiality certificate with it, but this  Court in its judgment dated 28th October, 2005 [since reported in (2005)  13 SCC 789] categorically 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 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 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.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

The factual events as noticed hereinbefore clearly show that the  Appellant’s application for grant of essentiality certificate 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 then thereafter sent several reminders.  The  conduct of the Appellant must, therefore, be judged from the factual  matrix obtaining therein.  We, therefore, 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 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,  [See Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (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  the same, it should not be denied the benefits 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 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.