w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Bharat Oman Refineries Limited v/s CCG & ST & Customs, Bhopal


Company & Directors' Information:- BHARAT OMAN REFINERIES LTD [Active] CIN = U11101MP1994PLC008162

Company & Directors' Information:- BHARAT REFINERIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL1994PLC057816

Company & Directors' Information:- CCG (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U30000KA2003PTC041515

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND C REFINERIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15142TZ1999PTC008825

    Ex. Appeal Nos. 52566 of 2015, 50412 of 2016 & Final Order Nos. 52258 - 52259 of 2018

    Decided On, 20 June 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. V. PADMANABHAN
    By, TECHNICAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MS. RACHNA GUPTA
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For Petitioner: B.L. Narasimhan, Anurag Kapur and Akhil Gupta, Advocates And For Respondents: M.R. Sharma, AR



Judgment Text

Rachna Gupta, Member (J)

1. The present appeals are challenging the Order-in-Original No. 7/2015 dated 30.03.2015 for the period 2008 to April, 2013 and Order-in-Original No. 28/2015 dated 28.12.2015 covering the period 2008-09 to 2013-14. Both the appeals are being decided through this common order.

2. The appellant is a refinery for the manufacture of petroleum products. During the period in dispute, Crude Oil Refinery project in District Sagar, M.P. was being set up and as part of setting up, the appellant awarded a lumpsum contract to M/s. Driplex Water Engineering Limited (Contractor), the contractor for setting up RO-DM Water Plant at the premises of the appellant. The dispute also involved the works contract awarded to M/s. Bridge & Roof Co. Limited for supply of fired heat for M.H. block (contractor). The contractor discharged service tax under the category of "Works Contract Service" as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. The contractor paid the service tax under the Works Contract Composition Scheme and the appellant availed cenvat credit of the service tax so paid. In terms of the Works Contract Composition Scheme, the contractor was not allowed to avail cenvat credit on inputs used by him in providing the service. The Department during the course of verification of the accounts of the appellant, noticed that the appellant had availed cenvat credit on certain inputs as well as various capital goods. In respect of these inputs and capital goods, the buyer was shown as the contractor but the consignee was shown as Bharat Oman Refineries Limited (BORL) (appellant). The Department was of the view that such cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods was not admissible to the appellant inasmuch as such credits would not have been admissible to the contractor, who has opted to pay the service tax in terms of the Works Contract Composition Scheme. Consequently, show cause notices were issued and vide the impugned order the cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods were denied and the adjudicating authority also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by the decisions, the present appeals have been filed by the appellant.

3. With the above background we heard Sh. B.L. Narasimhan & Sh. Akhil Gupta, ld. Advocates for the appellant as well as Sh. M.R. Sharma, ld. AR representing the Revenue.

4. On behalf of the appellant the main submissions are summarised below:-

(i) In respect of capital goods, it was submitted that the cenvat credit will be allowable in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in respect of all goods used in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products. All the capital goods for which credit has been availed are undoubtedly used by the appellant in his factory and hence the credit cannot be denied. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar vs. International Tractor Ltd. -2007 (220) ELT 155 (Tri. Del.) which was also affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana reported as 2010 (255) ELT 196 (P & H). Ld. Advocate emphasised that the ownership of the capital goods is immaterial in availing the cenvat credit on capital goods. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad vs. JSW Ispat Steel Ltd. -2015 (327) ELT 549 (Tri. Mum.).

ii) He also submitted that credit on capital goods for the appellant cannot be denied by considering the same as inputs for the contractors. In this connection, he referred to the definition of input in Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which specifically excludes capital goods from the purview of inputs.

iii) He however submitted that in respect of inputs, for which cenvat credit was taken by the appellant was in respect of a different service provider. The Tribunal in Final Order No. 52640/2017 dated 30.03.2017 in respect of the same assessee has held that such credit on inputs will not be admissible. The order is under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court.

iv) He also submitted that the demand in respect of inputs has been made by invoking the extended period of time limit under Section 11A but he asserted part of the demand will be time barred inasmuch as the show cause notice has been issued on 30.06.2016 covering the period September, 2008 to April, 2013.

v) In respect of the appellant Appeal No. E/50412/2016, the ld. Advocate adopted the arguments made by Sh. B.L. Narasimhan. However, he added that in respect of the demand confirmed against second appeal, a part of the demand on inputs after 01.07.2012 when the Works Contract Composition Scheme was no longer invoked. Consequently, he submitted that the demand for the period after 01.07.2012 cannot be sustained. He also reiterated the grounds of time bar.

5. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue justified the impugned orders. He drew our attention to the Works Contract Composition Scheme and referred to the Explanation under Rule 3(i) in which it has been specified that the gross amount charged for the works contract shall be the sum including the value of all goods used in or in relation to the execution of works contract, whether supplied in other contract for consideration or otherwise.

Accordingly, he submitted that the value of not only inputs but also capital goods are required to be included for payment of service tax under WCS Composition scheme and no cenvat credit on such goods can be allowed to the contractor. Consequently, he justified the impugned order by stating that the credit which cannot be directly allowed cannot be indirectly disallowed.

6. After hearing both the parties at length our considered observations and findings are as follows:

It is the case of the appellant that for setting up crude oil refinery project and plant and machinery, the appellant awarded several contracts for supply, installation and commissioning thereof on lumpsum turnkey basis. On such contract was awarded to M/s. Driplex Water Engineering Ltd. for setting up RO-DM water plant at the premises of the appellant. Though M/s. Driplex Water has paid the duty under Rule 3(2) of Composition Scheme but the appellant was still entitled to avail cenvat credit on the capital goods of the ownership thereof being lying with the appellant itself. It is submitted on their behalf that as per Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, the value of work contract service is the gross amount charged by the service provider less the value of the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contract which is leviable to VAT/Sales Tax and therefore in no case M/s. Driplex Water would avail cenvat credit on the capital goods in the execution of work contract. On the contrary, the Department has put forth that once the gross value of work contract service including the value of inputs used in the sale is already considered for the payment of service tax on the service the value of the goods used in or in relation to the execution of work contract get subsumed in the gross value of the work contract itself. The goods on which the appellant has taken cenvat credit were very much of the part of the said work contract, hence, once the contactor i.e. M/s. Driplex Water was not entitled to avail cenvat credit in terms of sub-rule 3(2), the appellant is not entitled to avail the cenvat credit.

7. From the documents on record, it is apparent that goods on which the appellant has availed cenvat credit have been used by M/s. Driplex Water for providing the works contract service. It was M/s. Driplex Water who has issued purchase order and procured the goods from manufacturer/dealer. Thus, it was M/s. Driplex Water only who could avail the cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs/capital goods used by them in providing the works contract service to the appellant in view of the definition of works contract service under clause (zzzza) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. The inputs/capital goods used by M/s. Driplex Water in the present case cannot be distinguished to be out of the scope of being the work contract service. Thus, the cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in providing of the said work contract service was admissible to M/s. Driplex Water and not to the recipient thereof i.e. the appellant. It is a fact on record that M/s. Driplex Water has availed the benefit of composition scheme under Rule 3(2) by paying the service tax @ 4% of the gross amount including the value of the inputs used in providing the service and as such is barred from availing the facility of cenvat credit on the inputs in furtherance of the provider of the said rule.

8. When the Cenvat credit is not available to the contractor, the said cenvat credit cannot be passed on to the appellant namely M/s. Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. The CESTAT in the case of M/s. Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that what cannot be done directly is not to be allowed to be done indirectly. In this case when CENVAT credit on the input goods is not to be allowed to the contactor, who is service provider, the same cannot be passed on directly to the appellant, M/s. Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. The case laws cited by the appellant are not applicable to the present facts. The contract has paid service tax under the Composite Scheme, where they have paid service tax at the reduced rate of 4% instead of payment of standard rate of service tax @ 10%, when contractors in both the appeals have exercised this option, they cannot directly or indirectly pass on the CENVAT credit of any input goods to the recipient of their services. Under the CENVAT scheme the CENVAT credit is passed on by using the invoice documents, which are to be transferred to the buyer of the goods only. Here buyer of the goods is the contractor and not the appellant M/s. Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. The fact that invoice mentions the appellants as consignee and the go

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ods were delivered directly at appellants premises is also not relevant for the purpose for the reasons as discussed above. Now coming to the plea of show cause notice being barred by limitation, we are of the considered view that appellants themselves entered into the contract. They were very much aware of terms and conditions thereof and even the legal implications thereof. Ignorance of law about work contracts and respective consequences also the respective liabilities cannot be a ground to extend any benefit to the appellants. This is apparent that the fact of availing the benefit of comparison scheme by the contractors was very much in knowledge of the appellants. Again the ignorance to the legal consequences thereof cannot be the excuse rather we opine it to be the positive act on part of the appellants committing suppression of facts thereby entitling the department to invoke the extended period of limitation. 9. In view of above discussions, the order under challenge is held to have no infirmity and is accordingly ordered to be sustained. As a result, the appeals are hereby dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-12-2019 M/s. The India Sugars & Refineries Ltd., Rep. by its: Manager Finance, P.S. Krishnamurthy Versus The Commissioner for Cane Development & Director of Sugar, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
16-07-2019 K.M. Refineries & Infraspace Pvt Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-07-2018 CCE, CCG & ST, Delhi - III V/S Bharmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
24-05-2018 Ultratech Cement Ltd. V/S CCG & ST, Udaipur - I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
14-03-2018 TEVA API India Pvt. Limited Appellant V/S CCG & ST & E, Ujjain Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
13-03-2018 Bharat Oman Refineries Limited V/S CGST&EC, Bhopal Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
12-10-2017 Cals Refineries Limited & Others Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
02-08-2017 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kochi Refinery, Represented by its Dy. General Manager (Personnel), S. Vijayakumar Versus The General Secretary, Cochin Refineries Employee's Consumer Co-Operative Society Canteen Employees Union & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2017 Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Belgaum V/S Godavari Bio-refineries Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
01-05-2017 Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Belgaum V/S India Sugars and Refineries Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
11-04-2017 V.G.K. Naidu (Former Member & Workman of Cochin Refineries Workers Association) Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
30-03-2017 Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd V/S C.C.E. & ST, Bhopal Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
21-03-2017 Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd V/S CCE & ST Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-02-2017 Kochi Refineries Ltd. and Others V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin Commissionerate and Others. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
21-12-2016 The Cochin Refineries Employees Association Versus The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others High Court of Kerala
23-08-2016 The Cochin Refineries Employees Versus The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Others High Court of Kerala
17-06-2016 K.E. Sunitha Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Cochin Refineries Ltd., Vyttila & Another High Court of Kerala
03-05-2016 M/s. Ravi Prakash Refineries (P) Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka Supreme Court of India
27-04-2016 Blenzor (India), Versus M/s. Niklesh Cooking Oil Refineries, & Another Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
01-02-2016 Kochi Refineries Limited., Versus M/s. Reva Enviro Systems (P) Ltd., High Court of Kerala
21-08-2015 Bharat Salt Refineries Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2014 Lotus Refineries Private Limited Versus National Spot Exchange Limited High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-08-2014 M/s. The India Sugars & Refineries Ltd. Versus Tushar Girinath, IAS, Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
18-07-2014 Shamanur Shivashankarappa Versus M/s. India Sugars And Refineries Ltd. High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
09-05-2014 Kamani Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bhuwaneshwar Refineries Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-09-2013 Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, (formerly known as Madras Refineries Limited) Versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2013 Cals Refineries Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-01-2013 Southern Refineries Ltd. Versus State of Kerala & Others High Court of Kerala
13-06-2012 Southern Refineries Limited Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary, Taxes Department High Court of Kerala
16-05-2012 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Sr.Branch Manager Versus M/s.Sheetal Refineries (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
02-05-2012 Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. Versus M/s. Mantech Consultants High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-04-2012 Madras Refineries Limited, Now Known as Chennai Petroleum Corporation, Rep.by its Company Secretary & Others Versus The Chief Commissioner for persons with Disabilities, Sarojini House & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-10-2011 The Commissioner of Central Excise Belgaum Versus M/s. India Sugar & Refineries Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
10-08-2011 Kochi Refineries Ltd. Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
08-07-2011 Shri Renuga Refineries Private Ltd Represented by its authorised signatory N.P. Perumal Theni District Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I Theni Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-10-2010 M/s. Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Ltd. Versus Punjab State & Others Supreme Court of India
01-09-2010 The Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mangalore Versus M/S. Mangalore Refineries & Petrochemicals Ltd., Mangalore High Court of Karnataka
27-08-2010 Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. Versus Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) & Others Supreme Court of India
25-02-2010 M/s. Golden Refineries Pvt. Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director Versus The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kangeyam. High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2010 Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad Versus Satyasai Oil Industries & Refineries Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
23-02-2010 Madras Refineries SC/ST Employees Welfare Association, Rep. By its General Secretary, M. Dayalan Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai Versus The General Manager (HR) Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-01-2010 M/s.Madras Refineries Ltd. Versus The Asst. Commissioner Central Assessment Circle IV & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2009 India Sugars and Refineries Limited, Hospet, Bellary District Versus The Secretary to Government, Commerce and Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
01-07-2009 Madras Refineries Limited (now Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd) Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2009 M/s. Sri Krishna Refineries Rep. By its Partner Mr. C. Krishnan Versus The Assistant Regional Director Sub Regional Office, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-12-2008 The Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), Karnataka Electricity Board (K.P.T.C.L.), Tumkur & Another Versus Ennar Refineries Private Limited, Tumkur High Court of Karnataka
01-08-2008 M/s Bharat Salt Refineries Ltd., Chennai Versus M/s Compania Naviera "SODNOC" & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-08-2008 M/s. Mascon Multiservices & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-03-2008 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin Versus M/s Kochi Refineries Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
07-09-2007 Reliance Infocomm Ltd & Another Versus Sheetal Refineries Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-08-2007 Cochin Refineries Ltd. Versus Vadavukode Puthencruiz Grama & Another High Court of Kerala
08-08-2007 R K Refineries and Metal P Ltd Versus Bishwanath Prosad Agarwal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-03-2007 Compania Naviera SODNOC, Greece Versus Bharat Refineries Ltd., Chennai and Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-02-2007 M/s. Sri Varalakshmi Oil Refineries (P) Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, O/o the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Jayakondan, Perambalur District High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2007 M/s. IVP Limited rep by A. Mahadevan, Power of Attorney Versus M/s. BP Refineries rep, by its Partner Mr. Narayanadas Sohanlal Vaid & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2006 State of Karnataka by its Secretary to Government Versus M/s. Ennar Refineries Pvt. Ltd High Court of Karnataka
20-07-2005 Federation of Central Government Versus Kochi Refineries Limited High Court of Kerala
28-01-2005 M. Elangovan & Others Versus Madras Refineries Limited represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-04-2004 The Kochi Refineries Ltd. versus G. Omanakuttan High Court of Kerala
18-08-2003 M/s. Cochin Refineries Ltd. versus Commissioner of Customs High Court of Kerala
27-02-2003 Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Cochin Refineries Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-10-2002 Madras Refineries Limited Versus V. Jayakumar and Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2002 Cochin Refineries Employees Association Versus Union of India High Court of Kerala
29-04-2002 M/s.Nagarjuna Construction Co. Limited Versus The General Manager (Lube Expansion Project), Madras Refineries Limited, Manali, Madras and another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-04-2002 K.P. Varkey Versus Cochin Refineries Educational Aid Society & Others High Court of Kerala
18-03-2002 Cochin Refineries Employees Association Versus Kochi Refineries Limited & Others High Court of Kerala
13-02-2002 Cochin Refineries Ltd. Versus State of Kerala & Others High Court of Kerala
06-11-2001 S.V.S. Agro Refineries Private Limited Versus Union of India and Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-10-2001 Madras Refineries Limited Versus Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2001 Madras Refineries Ltd. Versus State of Tamil Nadu Supreme Court of India
03-07-2001 SHEETAL REFINERIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE) NO. V. ENFORCEMENT WING, HYDERABAD High Court of Andhra Pradesh
27-06-2001 S.V.S. Oil Mills Versus S.V.S. Agro Refineries P. Limited and Anr. High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2001 C.S. Usha Versus Madras Refineries Limited, Chennai and Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-02-2000 State of Maharashtra and Another Versus Narendra Oil Refineries and Another Supreme Court of India
01-10-1999 KALYANI REFINERIES LIMITED VERSUS BANARAS STATE BANK LIMITED High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-06-1999 Raviprakash Refineries P. Ltd. Versus Do-Well Oil Plants Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-02-1998 Champalal Vithuram Jaju & Ors. Versus Bharat Refineries Limited & ors. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-10-1997 Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. Versus Madras Refineries Ltd. Supreme Court of India
02-09-1997 Bharath Refineries and Oil Mills Versus State of Tamil Nadu High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-1997 A.C. Muthiah Vs. Madras Refineries Ltd., Madras, represented by its Company Secretary V. Srinivasan and others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-1997 J S Refineries Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Sales Tax High Court of Orissa
18-03-1997 Madras Refineries Limited Versus Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited and Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-1997 Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Madras Refineries Limited High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-08-1996 Paulose Versus Cochin Refineries Ltd. High Court of Kerala
01-12-1994 Madras Refineries Ltd. Versus U.B. Petroproducts Limited High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-08-1994 Collector of Central Excise, Indorev. Madhyapradesh Electricals Limited Versus Devidayal Rolling and Refineries Private Limited Supreme Court of India
21-02-1992 ENNAR REFINERIES VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES-CUM-ENTRY TAX, (ASSESSMENTS), SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE High Court of Karnataka
16-04-1990 NARENDRA OIL REFINERIES VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-10-1989 V.V. Raghavan Petitioner Versus M/s. Madras Refineries Ltd., Madras & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-09-1988 COCHIN REFINERIES LTD Versus C.S. COMPANY ENG. CONTRACTORS High Court of Kerala
24-07-1987 COCHIN REFINERIES LTD. Versus C.S. COMPANY High Court of Kerala
11-12-1986 Narendra Oil Refineries Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-09-1986 Indo Lube Refineries Versus Sales Tax Officer High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-03-1986 Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Bharat Refineries Ltd High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-12-1985 Nav Swadeshi Oil Mills and Refineries Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Mahaboobnagar High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-10-1985 ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES UNION VERSUS DEVIDAYAL ROLLING AND REFINERIES PRIVATE LIMITED High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-12-1984 SARAN Versus COCHIN REFINERIES LTD. High Court of Kerala
10-10-1984 MARIAMMA THOMAS Versus M/S. BHARAT REFINERIES LTD High Court of Kerala
24-01-1984 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS DEVIDAYAL ROLLING REFINERIES PVT. LTD. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-12-1983 P.Surya Rao Versus Madras Refineries Ltd., Manali, Madras 68 represented by its Chair1man and Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras