2006 (2) TMI 56 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise - Foreign going aircraft landed at intermediate airport within country before proceeding to foreign airports Mere change in the flight number not ground for denial of exemption Flight satisfies the definition of foreign going aircraft Eligible for supply of fuel at concessional rate of duty

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged mis-declaration of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) as International Flights
- Duty payment discrepancy and penalty imposition
- Interpretation of the term "foreign going aircraft"
- Applicability of concessional rate of duty for fuel supplied to domestic extension flights

Analysis:
1. Alleged mis-declaration of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) as International Flights:
The appellants were accused of clearing ATF by mis-declaring Domestic Flights as International Rights, resulting in a duty payment discrepancy. The original authority confirmed the duty demanded, along with interest under Section 11AB and imposed a penalty under Section 11AC.

2. Interpretation of the term "foreign going aircraft":
The dispute centered around whether domestic extension flights, like the one operating between Hyderabad and Mumbai, qualified as foreign going aircraft for concessional duty rates. The Revenue argued that these flights did not meet the criteria as they did not have a direct trip to a foreign airport, lacked correlation with flights to/from foreign airports, and were assigned different flight numbers. Legal definitions from the Customs Act, 1962, and relevant circulars were cited to support the Revenue's stance.

3. Applicability of concessional rate of duty for fuel supplied to domestic extension flights:
The Tribunal analyzed past decisions and circulars to determine that the concessional rate of duty could not be denied solely based on a change in flight or document numbers. It was established that the flight from Hyderabad to Mumbai, carrying both domestic and foreign-bound passengers, qualified as a foreign going aircraft under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the aircraft was entitled to fuel supply at a concessional rate of duty. The Tribunal's decision favored the appellants based on these findings and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the issues involved in the alleged mis-declaration of ATF, duty payment discrepancies, interpretation of "foreign going aircraft," and the applicability of concessional duty rates to domestic extension flights resulted in a favorable decision for the appellants based on legal interpretations and precedent cases.