Rebate claims must follow the notification's exact scope; administrative instructions cannot override an express exclusion.

Rebate of duty on aviation turbine fuel supplied to aircraft operating to Kathmandu was found inadmissible because the governing excise notification applied only to specified foreign destinations and did not include Nepal. Earlier administrative instructions and manual provisions could not override or enlarge the notification's express scope, so the refund claim fell outside the rebate scheme and the rejection of the claim was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate of duty was admissible on aviation turbine fuel supplied to aircraft operating to Kathmandu, Nepal under the applicable central excise notification, and whether earlier administrative instructions or manual provisions could override the notification.

Analysis: The claim for rebate was examined under Notification No. 46/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 22-09-1994, which restricted application in respect of foreign countries having land frontiers with India and expressly covered only specified destinations. Nepal was not included within the covered category. The later administrative instructions and manual extract relied upon by the applicant were held not to displace the notification, since executive directions issued prior to or inconsistent with the notification could not override its statutory force. The claim was therefore found to be outside the scope of the rebate notification.

Conclusion: The rebate was held inadmissible and the rejection of the refund claim was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revision application failed on merits, and the impugned order rejecting the rebate claim remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A rebate or exemption claim must satisfy the terms of the governing notification, and administrative instructions cannot enlarge or override the notification's express exclusion.

---