High Court sets aside order, remits for fresh consideration, emphasizes consistency in Govt decisions

The High Court set aside the order dated April 30, 2009, and remitted the proceedings to the revisional authority for a fresh consideration. The Petition was disposed of without costs, emphasizing the necessity of consistency in the Government's decisions and the importance of considering administrative instructions in such matters.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the correctness and legality of an order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the clearance of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) to aircraft bound for Nepal and the payment of duty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Notification 46/94-C.E. (N.T.) and Duty Demand:
The Petitioner, an oil corporation, cleared ATF to aircraft bound for Nepal between February 1998 and February 2000 under Notification 46/94-C.E. (N.T.). The dispute arose when notices were issued for payment of full duty at 16% ad valorem on the ATF supplied. Various authorities confirmed the duty demand, leading to a revision application that was rejected in April 2009.

2. Rebate Notifications and Administrative Instructions:
The Government issued Notifications in 1994, 2001, 2002, and 2003 regarding rebates on mineral oil products exported for consumption on aircraft. Administrative instructions extended the concession to countries like Nepal, Afghanistan, and Bhutan. The Petitioner cited previous orders and CESTAT rulings supporting the extension of rebates to ATF supplied to flights to Afghanistan.

3. Judicial Review and Consistency in Government Decisions:
The revisional authority denied the Petitioner the benefit of administrative instructions, citing Notification 46/94. The High Court noted the importance of consistency in the Government's determinations and highlighted the discrepancy between the Notification's restrictions and the broader administrative instructions. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the proceedings for a fresh determination, emphasizing the need to maintain consistency and consider the administrative instructions.

4. Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the order dated April 30, 2009, and remitted the proceedings to the revisional authority for a fresh consideration. The Petition was disposed of without costs, emphasizing the necessity of consistency in the Government's decisions and the importance of considering administrative instructions in such matters.

---