Judgment :- V.V. Kamat, j These five revision cases are brought before us by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., relating to five separate assessment years - T.R.C. No. 40 of 1994 -1987-88, T.R.C. No. 41 of 1994 -1986-87, T.R.C. No. 42 of 1994 -1982-83, T.R.C. No. 39 of 1994 -1985-86 and T.R.C. No. 38 of 1994 -1981-82. These are for all practical purposes decided by the main judgment in T. A. No. 95 of 1992 dated. April 20,1993. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, the revision cases are decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner has transferred petroleum products outside the State of Kerala without paying excise duty in the Kerala State through the excise bonded warehouses. The question is whether this excise duty is payable on release of petroleum products from licensed Central excise warehouses situate outside the State of Kerala and as such would form part of purchase turnover of petroleum products purchased from the Cochin Refineries for the purpose of impost under the provisions of S.SA of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 3. The petitioner is a wholly owned and controlled Central Government undertaking having the wholesale right of purchase of petroleum products manufactured by M/s. Cochin Refineries Ltd. The petroleum products from the Cochin Refineries Ltd., move through pipelines to the tanks/ warehouses licensed by the Central excise situate within the State of Kerala and thereafter by ships to the tanks/warehouses licensed by the Central excise and situated outside the State either by rail or road transport to the depots of the Indian Oil Corporation, to the dealers and consequently to the customers. Incidence and levy of tax under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, is provided by Chapter 3 there if and it would be elementary that S.5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, enacts that petroleum products are taxable at the point of sale in the State by any oil co. liable to tax under the aforesaid chapter, except where the sale is by any oil company to another oil company. It means and it is provided that the petroleum products purchased and moved from the Cochin Refineries Ltd., moved firstly either after the payment of Central excise duty on their release from the licensed tanks/ warehouses of the Cochin Refineries, or secondly, before payment of Central excise duty. It means and it is provided that the petroleum products purchased and moved from the Cochin Refineries Ltd., moved firstly either after the payment of Central excise duty on their release from the licensed tanks/ warehouses of the Cochin Refineries, or secondly, before payment of Central excise duty. This is as per the provisions and procedure prescribed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. This is obviously to the licensed tanks/ warehouses situate outside the State. It is seen that whenever the commodities are released from the licensed tanks/ warehouses in the State of Kerala and the Central excise duty is paid in regard thereto, it is included in the turnover and consequently, the calculated applicable sales tax or purchase tax is paid. 4. The assessing authority dealt with this excise duty element as forming part of the purchase turnover assessable to tax under the statutory provision of S.5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and consequently added the amount as forming part of the purchase turnover. 5. It is contended that this amount of Central excise duty is directly paid by the petitioner to the Central Excise Department in discharge of its own obligation that arose on release of petroleum products from the bonded warehouses situated outside the State of Kerala and as such therefore, the said element cannot constitute purchase price at the hands of the petitioner because as per the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, the liability to pay excise duty on petroleum products is placed on the ultimate licensee at the time of the release or removal of goods from such warehouses. It is contended that the incidence of payment of excise duty is to be understood as attracting only at the time of final release/removal from the licensed warehouses in other States. It is contended that it is not a payment on behalf of the manufacturer of petroleum products - M/s. Cochin Refineries Ltd., and consequently in view of the above position the authorities would not be justified in treating the excise duty element as part of the purchase turnover, by placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Kerala) - [1993] 89 STC 106 (Ker.) (FB). 6. 6. This is the question which was also argued before the lower authorities, to contend that the various provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act and the Rules thereunder that the liability as would be found from the Rules will have to be understood as having shifted in situations of re-warehousing in licensed warehouses in other States creating separate independent and exclusive liability at the time of removal of the goods from those warehouses outside the State of Kerala. Reliance was placed not only on the then existing rule position but also submissions were founded with reference to the contention that amendments during the period of interregnum if taken into consideration, licensed warehouses have been fixed with the liability of payment of excise duty. 7. The authorities below considered the situation as completely governed by the Full Bench decision of this Court by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation's case (1993) 89 STC 106 to hold that the excise duty element is the liability and is payable by the petitioner, being in discharge of the liability of M/s. Cochin Refineries Ltd. and as such it will form part of the purchase turnover of the petitioner under the above referred provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. In other words, the authorities considered the question as fully covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court. What is contended is a rigorous attempt to take out the situation from the binding impact of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation's case (1993) 89 STC 106. 8. In the petition, it is urged that this Central excise duty is neither due in the State of Kerala from anyone much less from the petitioner or even from M/s. Cochin Refineries Ltd. It is not even paid in the State of Kerala with reference to the quantities that came to be transferred to the Central excise licensed warehouses located outside the State of Kerala from where the consignee warehouse license holders would be considered independently and exclusively in the matter of Central excise duty if found leviable at the time of release, based on the enduse as per the provisions and procedure contained in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Central Excise Traffic Act, 1985 and the Rules made thereunder. 9. 9. In other words, it is contended that the excise duty payable at the time of release of the goods from the licensed warehouses situate outside the State of Kerala shall not and could not be treated as part of the purchase turnover, the same being the liability of the licensed warehouse holders and the payment of excise duty being in discharge of the statutory obligation of the licensed warehouse holders, not having any relation whatsoever with the 1 i ability of the manufacturer. 10. This contention is sought to be supported on the strength of some amendments coming in the statute book in February, 1986 dealing with certain aspect in the process of simplification of the rigors of the procedure as is usually done from time to time in all licensing enactments. 11. In order to appreciate the main contention and the facet relating to the contention that the amendments fixing liability on the licensed warehouse holder outside the State of Kerala and/or the purchase of the product from the said licensed warehouse holder, it would be necessary in the fist instance to see whether the Full Bench decision of this Court has considered the question from all its aspects and consequently to ponder over the submission in regard to an attempt to take out the situation from the clutches of the decision of the Full Bench. We do so because after hearing the learned counsel and carefully going through judgment of the Full Bench, we have no doubt that the question in all its perspectives has been neatly considered by the Full Bench and with regard to any aspect that is sought to be placed before us for our consideration, it cannot be said that the factual peculiarity placed by the learned counsel would in any way take away the matter from and out of the decision of the Full Bench. 12. Before the Full Bench, the assessee is also an oil company (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) dealing in petroleum products, manufactured by the Cochin Refineries Ltd., another Oil company. It is also necessary to emphasise that the Cochin Refineries, it is stated, is permitted to store the manufactured products without payment of duty, in bonded warehouse and it was thereafter the Cochin Refineries sold the goods in question to the Indian Oil Corporation. It is also necessary to emphasise that the Cochin Refineries, it is stated, is permitted to store the manufactured products without payment of duty, in bonded warehouse and it was thereafter the Cochin Refineries sold the goods in question to the Indian Oil Corporation. Indian Oil Corporation in turn sold the products in question to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Thus, the factual situation except of change of the name of the Corporation is identical. There was no sales tax payable by oil companies in respect of sale of petroleum products if the sale is from one oil Company to another oil Company. The situation is also identical at the next step because there was no question of payment of tax arising in the sales of petroleum products by Cochin Refineries to Indian Oil Corporation and Indian Oil Corporation to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. 13. The further spread over of the factual matrix would show that after removing the concerned petroleum products from the bonded warehouses, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation sold the goods inside the State and taking into account the exercise duty element was liable to sales tax under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The goods were also despatched outside the State of Kerala after paying excise duty on such removal and even in spite of that the amount was not offered for assessment -the amount representing excise duty paid on the bonded purchase of goods, which were transferred outside the State of Kerala. It is observed that the Corporation carried the impression that liability to pay purchase tax confined only on the price paid to the Indian Oil Corporation and as payment of excise duty element and as such it will not form part of the purchase price of oil paid to the Indian Oil Corporation. 14. Comparison of the factual situation would only show that the situation in the matter before the Full Bench was of payment, which is not the situation in the proceedings before us. It would be at once clear that this cannot give any different shade of meaning to the situation in view of the position that the question is one of liability and not as regards of fact as to whether payment is made or payment is not made. It would be at once clear that this cannot give any different shade of meaning to the situation in view of the position that the question is one of liability and not as regards of fact as to whether payment is made or payment is not made. The assessing authority rejected the contention and levied purchase tax on the turnover of purchase in respect of the quantity removed outside the State of Kerala and included excise duty element paid by the Corporation. Now, the question is taken up for consideration by the Full Bench particularly in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment. It is considered in the following manner. The assessee is liable to purchase tax under S.SA in respect of the petroleum products despatched by the assessee outside the State. The only question is whether the excise duty paid by the assessee will also form part of the purchase turnover. The assessee is a registered dealer and in the course of business purchased from another registered dealer goods which are liable to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The goods were despatched outside the State in the teeth of an undisputed position that the tax in regard thereto is payable under S.SA of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The purchase lax has to be paid by the assessee on the taxable turnover relating to the purchase of oil. The Full Bench reached this conclusion after considering the meaning in the enactment of what is known as taxable turnover, meaning aggregate amount for which the goods are either bought or sold, supplied or distributed by a dealer and shall include any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods sold at the time of, or before, the delivery thereof or any cash or other discount on the price allowed. In dealing with the question as to whether the purchase turnover of the Corporation will take in the excise duty element as well, on facts, the Full Bench referred to the sale bills issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation emphasising that the bills take in only the price of the oil and not the excise duty element. It is because excise duty has to be paid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation as and when it released the goods from its bonded warehouse. It is because excise duty has to be paid by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation as and when it released the goods from its bonded warehouse. The Full Bench has approached to the answer yet by another passage, by examining the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder in paragraph 7 of the judgment. 15. Referring to S.3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a foundation is laid that the levy and collection of duty of excise shall be in such manner and rules prescribed during the relevant time in the First Schedule. It is emphasised that the duty has to be paid on all excisable goods, which are produced or manufactured in India according to the rates fixed by the Central Government. A reference is also made to the First Schedule of the Act relating to the rate of petroleum products. R.9 is emphasised imposing injunction that no excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are produced or manufactured mutual excise duty leviable thereon has been paid at such place and in such manner as is prescribed in the rules or as the Collector may require. This shows that the Full Bench considered the producer or the manufacturer of the goods as liable to pay excise duty in regard thereto restricting positively any movement of excisable goods. The Full Bench was alive to the situation where goods can be deposited without payment of duty in places such as storerooms, godowns approved by the authorities thereunder. Rr. 27,47 & 140 are referred to in extenso for the purpose of movement of goods under the situation of control of the said rules without payment of duty. The Full Bench is more than particular with regard to the deeming situation created by rule 140 relating to certain places of storage deeming to be a warehouse under a proper licence. The provisions of the concerned rules relating to the requirement to be maintained by the manufacturer such as entry book in proper form is also not out of sight in the process of reasoning. R.48 is also noticed to require execution of a bond by the manufacturer of excisable goods. 16. The analysis of the various rules relating to the storage, movements within the State and outside the State has taken the Full Bench to conclude that the liability of excise duty is on the manufacturer. R.48 is also noticed to require execution of a bond by the manufacturer of excisable goods. 16. The analysis of the various rules relating to the storage, movements within the State and outside the State has taken the Full Bench to conclude that the liability of excise duty is on the manufacturer. In other words, even the statutory provision of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder was considered by the Full Bench to reach a conclusion that it is the manufacturer or producer who is made liable for payment of excise duty. 17. It is thereafter the decided, reported cases are taken up and discussed from paragraph 10 of the judgment. The conclusion is recorded to the effect that the excise duty in respect of the manufacture of petroleum products is leviable on Cochin Refineries Ltd., and it is the liability of Cochin Refineries to pay excise duty before removing the goods. It is reiterated that the excise duty is payable by the manufacturer and therefore the duty is-paid by the assessee in discharge of the liability of the Cochin Refineries Ltd. The liability certainly arose before removing the goods for delivery to a dealer, and therefore, he will have tapay excise duty. It is specified that when the goods are sold to Indian Oil Corporation, it is natural that the sale price of the products alone would form the bill amount and it will have to be understood that the collection of the Central excise duty payable by the Cochin Refineries Ltd would be understood to have been postponed as the collection will not serve any purpose at mat point of time, more so, when there are no sales tax also to be collected. In the context, it is emphasised in the concluding paragraph that by the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, especially the provision for depositing in bonded warehouse without payment of duty, and by the requirement of executing bonds, the ultimate collection of Central excise duty is well secured. When the question has been considered threadbare, as the first step in the process of considering the submissions of the learned counsel, in our judgment, we will have to keep close to our mind that the Full Bench judgment is decided on Dec. 16,1992 and all the provisions of the Central Excise Rules have been referred to. When the question has been considered threadbare, as the first step in the process of considering the submissions of the learned counsel, in our judgment, we will have to keep close to our mind that the Full Bench judgment is decided on Dec. 16,1992 and all the provisions of the Central Excise Rules have been referred to. In such a situation, it is not possible to keep aside the principle that all aspects are not expected to be specifically dealt with and would have to be understood to have been deemed to have been considered, though not specifically urged or referred to therein, 18. There is yet another aspect. The judgment of the Full Bench is the judgment of the court of superior jurisdiction with reference to the Division Bench and as such it has all the rigors of a binding force. We do not have any kind of thought and independence to be away form its rigor in any manner. Apart therefrom if the position shows that in substance the facets of the submission that are placed before us could be said to be present to the mind of the Full Bench, the situation becomes yet. more than difficult for our digestion. 19. The legislative field is much more than conversant with the process of dealing with the procedural situation in the context of changing needs of time. Statutes such as dealing with sales tax, income tax, licensing prohibition, control of human traffic and allied subjects leave all emerged with the necessary pro visions of rigors as fell necessities of the concerned time. These rigors are felt unnecessary in the march of progress and occasions in regard thereto are not few when such rigors are legislatively loosened as they are felt no longer really required. Illustrations are many more. Licensing process is simplified. The income tax assessment forms have been more man simplified. Application for licences are also understandably intelligible. All these will have to be borne in mind to appreciate that the law of procedure cannot be understood to be a solution to understand the statutory liabilities in regard thereto. In other words, an attempt to contend that the manufacturer or producer absolves himself completely from the statutory liability and that too by reason of some amendment making some other along with him as liable would be difficult for acceptance. 20. In other words, an attempt to contend that the manufacturer or producer absolves himself completely from the statutory liability and that too by reason of some amendment making some other along with him as liable would be difficult for acceptance. 20. It is in this background we would refer to the strenuous submissions of the learned counsel based on the amendment of the rules. The learned counsel submitted that the Central Excise rules were drastically amended in February 1986. To buttress the submission the learned counsel strenuously took us through Rr.156(A) and 156(B) in regard to the removal of goods from one warehouse to another. This procedure is available in R.156(A) requiring application in triplicate and in proper form to the office-in-charge of the warehouse atleast 24 hours before the intended removal. In regard to such eventuality, consequences of failure are dealt with in S.156(B). In fact, in the petition reliance is placed on the provisions of the same rule (156 (B)). 21. The provision deals with the situation of failure on the part of the concerned in presenting the application in triplicate as required under R.156(A), It is provided that if such is the situation, the concerned consignee should pay the duty leviable on such goods within 10 days of the notice of demand and if the duty is not paid, he shall not he permitted to make fresh removal of any goods from one warehouse to another until the duty is paid, R.156(2) of the said Rules deals with the situation when such duty has been paid by the person who transfers to the effect that such duty will be refunded to the consignor. In our judgment, considering the rule in any manner whatsoever, the said situation does not give any dent to the clear liability spelt out from the provisions of the Act and the Rules, re-emphasised by the decision of the Full Bench Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1993) 89 STC 106 (Ker). All that the provision speaks in relation to the refund of the duty paid to the consignor, it is obvious as daylight, is that the liability is not synonymous with payment and refund in regard thereto. For all the above reasons we hold that the question in these revision cases is fully and neatly covered by the decision of the Full Bench Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Lid. For all the above reasons we hold that the question in these revision cases is fully and neatly covered by the decision of the Full Bench Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Lid. v. State of Kerala (1993) 89 STC 106 (Ker). The submissions referring to the amended rules do not take out the matter of the rigour of the Full Bench decision. Accordingly these tax revision cases stand dismissed.