Deemed export benefits for ICB petroleum supplies include terminal excise duty refund; alternate revision remedy not insisted upon.

Supplies made for petroleum operations through international competitive bidding were treated as eligible for deemed export benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy, including refund of terminal excise duty, because the policy allowed the assessee to choose the more beneficial relief where multiple benefits were available. The rejection of refund on the ground that only exemption was available was unsustainable. The Court also declined to require the petitioner to pursue the alternate revision remedy, holding that writ relief was appropriate where the issue was already settled and no useful purpose would be served by relegation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether supplies made pursuant to international competitive bidding for petroleum operations qualified for deemed export benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy, including refund of terminal excise duty. (ii) Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the alternate statutory remedy of revision.

Issue (i): Whether supplies made pursuant to international competitive bidding for petroleum operations qualified for deemed export benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy, including refund of terminal excise duty.

Analysis: The policy treated supplies made under paragraph 8.2(f) as eligible for deemed export benefits where import of the goods had been permitted at zero customs duty by notification and the supplies were made through international competitive bidding. The authorities accepted that the supplies were made through ICB, but rejected refund on the view that only exemption was available and not refund. The Court held that where the legal framework provides more than one benefit, the assessee is entitled to choose the more beneficial relief. The rejection based on absence of an enabling provision was not sustainable in the face of the policy scheme and the settled principle that beneficial relief cannot be denied merely because an exemption route also exists.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund of terminal excise duty and the rejection of the claim was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the alternate statutory remedy of revision.

Analysis: The existence of a revision remedy did not compel relegation where the controversy was already covered by settled legal principles and the issue had been consistently addressed by the Court. In such circumstances, insistence on alternate remedy would serve no useful purpose.

Conclusion: The plea to relegate the petitioner to alternate statutory remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the refund was directed to be paid within the time specified by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a policy grants deemed export benefits for ICB-based supplies eligible for zero-duty import, the assessee may choose the more beneficial statutory relief, and the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar writ relief when the issue is already settled.

---