1986 (12) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Rule 12 and Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding export of goods under bond without payment of duty.
- Application of Notification No. 203/67-CE and Notification No. 253/79-CE in determining excise duty on goods supplied to aircrafts on foreign run under Rule 13.
- Compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 13 for exporting goods without payment of duty.
- Legal basis for the collection of excise duty on goods exported under bond under Rule 13.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of excise duty for supplies to aircraft on foreign runs under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., contended that they were entitled to export without payment of duty under Rule 13 and that the notification retaining an amount per kilo litre on ATF K.50 supplied to aircrafts under Rule 12 should not apply to exports under Rule 13. The Assistant Collector, however, ruled in favor of collecting excise duty at the specified rate on goods supplied under Rule 13, citing the inter-linkage of Rules 12 and 13. The Appellate Collector upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that they had complied with all procedural requirements under Rule 13 for exporting goods under bond without payment of duty. They referenced various provisions of the Central Excise Rules, including Rule 9 on the payment of duty, Rule 14A on penalty for failure to furnish proof of export, and Rule 8 on exemptions. The appellant also cited judgments from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and previous Tribunal cases, contending that the authorities had not properly appreciated the law and facts in their case.

In response, the JDR relied on the original orders and citations mentioned by the appellant, advocating for the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant reiterated their argument that there was no provision for the levy, collection, and assessment of duty on the goods exported under bond, emphasizing the lack of clarity in the legal basis for the duty collection.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the inter-relationship between Rules 12, 13, 14, 14A, and 14B concerning the export of goods under bond or claim for rebate. The Tribunal found that Rules 12 and 13 were interconnected and had to be read together. They highlighted that Rule 13 did not provide for a total exemption from duty, as claimed by the appellant, and referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to support their decision. The Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and rejected it based on the legal framework and previous judicial interpretations.