1988 (3) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order. 2. Shri N.V. Raghavan Iyer has argued for the respondents M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan has argued for M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. None has appeared for M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. 3. We have heard Shri Sunder Rajan, learned J.D.R. for the appellant-Collector and S/Shri Raghavan Iyer and Kunhikrishnan for M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited respectively. 4. The issue involved in these appeals is whether unrebated rate of duty as prescribed in the Notification issued under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was payable in respect of Aviation Turbine Fuel supplied by the respondents to the foreign bound aircrafts in b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elhi) in the case of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. Superintendent of Central Excise, Mirzapur and Others. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court held that in respect of export of goods under Rule 13 from bond, duty was payable to the extent required to be paid in respect of export of goods under claim for rebate of duty in terms of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules. Following that judgment, this Tribunal held in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 404 (Supra) that action of the lower authorities in charging duty on the light diesel oil and furnace oil exported as ship's stores in terms of Notification No. 349/77-C.E., dated 16-12-1977, operative at that time, was correct. In the second decision relied upon by the learned J.D.R., viz., 1985 (2....