9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singhla, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant is a PSU. They have obtained clearance from the Committee of Secretaries and have challenged the Order-in-Original No. 11/2003, dated 30-9-2003 confirming demands on the allegation of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) to the international and domestic flights operating to and from the said airports. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d rate in respect of supplies affected to foreign-going aircrafts of Air India. The rejection of the benefit is not justified including the reasons given by the Commissioner in the impugned order. He submits that the Board's Circular dated 25-6-2002 settles the issue in assessee's favour, as it clarifies that the ATF supplied to the foreign bond aircraft is eligible for the concesssional rate of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Counsel submits that the Commissioner after subsequent period by Order-in-Appeal No. 7/2006, dated 23-1-2006 has granted the benefit of the Notifications. He submits that the said order has not been challenged by the Revenue and therefore, the benefit is required to be extended. He also refers to the Final Order Nos. 412-414/2005, dated 16-3-2005 passed by this Bench in the case of CCE v. IOC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition. 6. On a careful consideration, it is seen from the impugned order that the claim for the benefit of Notification is not challenged but the only ground for denying the benefit was on the ground that the flight number have been changed and reliance has been placed on the Circular dated 19-11-2001. However, this Circular has been modified subsequently by Circular dated 25-6-2002 wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
