JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is a Government Company engaged in the manufacture of electric transformers of various capacities. It is a joint venture between the Government of Kerala and the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited. By an agreement dated 31.7.2012, the petitioner entered into a contract with M/s. Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Ltd. for supply of two 315 MVA, 400/220/33 KV Transformers valued at Rs.13,90,00,000/- ex-works. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid contract was awarded to the petitioner under an International Competitive Bidding, for the undertaking of a project, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Transmission System Modernisation Project that was financed by a multilateral Agency called “Japan International Cooperation Agency [JICA]”. The latter Agency has been notified by the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance as an Agency entitled for the benefit of deemed exports under Notification No.1(FT)/DEA/2010 dated 5th May, 2010 [Ext.P1]. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially against Ext.P8 communication dated 5.12.2013, by which, the 4th respondent Superintendent of Central Excise informed the petitioner that its application for exemption from terminal excise duty on the deemed exports effected by it, could not be considered since, the goods in question did not satisfy the conditions required for Central Excise exemption under Notification No.12/2012 C.Ex dated 17.3.2012. Ext.P8 communication is impugned by the writ petitioner inter alia on the contention that the said communication proceeds on an erroneous understanding of the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of deemed exports. 2. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, who are authorities of the Customs Department, as also the 5th respondent, who is the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade, an authority under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act. The counter affidavit of the 5th respondent clearly states that the supplies effected by the petitioner are supplies to projects financed by multilateral or bilateral Agencies/Funds as notified by the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance under International Competitive Bidding, for the purposes of clause 8.2(d)(i) of Chapter 8 of the Foreign Trade Policy [2009-2014], and that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit intended for deemed exports as envisaged under clause 8.3 in Chapter 8 of the Foreign Trade Policy. It is the stand of the 5th respondent, therefore, that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of exemption from terminal excise duty, where supplies are made against International Competitive Bidding. The stand of respondents 1 to 4, on the other hand, as revealed from their counter affidavit, is that, inasmuch as the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions for exemption from excise duty as envisaged in the Central Excise Exemption Notification No.12/2012 C.Ex dated 17.3.2012, although its supplies would qualify for the benefit of deemed export status, the said supplies would not qualify for the benefit of terminal excise duty exemption, since, they do not satisfy the conditions of the aforesaid Notification. 3. I have heard the learned senior counsel Sri. Joseph Kodianthara duly assisted by Adv. Sri. Abraham Joseph Markos, on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. A. Sreekala, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appears for the 5th respondent. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the entitlement of the petitioner for the benefit of 'deemed export status', in respect of the supplies effected under the project aforementioned, has to be traced to the categorization under clause 8.2(d)(i) although they could independently have traced their entitlement to the same benefits to clause 8.2(f) of the Foreign Trade Policy also. It is pointed out that while compliance with the terms of Notification No.12/2012 C.Ex dated 17.3.2011, is a further condition to be satisfied for the purposes of obtaining the 'deemed export status' under clause 8.2(f) of the Foreign Trade Policy, when the deemed export status is sought in terms of clause 8.2(d)(i) of the Foreign Trade Policy, compliance with the conditions in the aforementioned Notification is not contemplated. The contention, in other words, is that so long as the petitioner traces the deemed export status of the supplied goods to clause 8.2(d)(i) of the Foreign Trade Policy, its entitlement for the benefits accruing to deemed exports has to be acknowledged, subject to the other provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. The contention, in other words, is that so long as the petitioner traces the deemed export status of the supplied goods to clause 8.2(d)(i) of the Foreign Trade Policy, its entitlement for the benefits accruing to deemed exports has to be acknowledged, subject to the other provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. It is evident that under clause 8.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy, one of the benefits for deemed exports is the exemption from terminal excise duty where supplies are made against International Competitive Bidding. In Ext.P8 communication that is impugned in the writ petition, the respondents also do not deny that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of exemption from terminal excise duty considering the status of the supplies effected by it as deemed exports. The only ground raised for rejecting the claim for exemption from terminal excise duty is that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of the Customs Notification aforementioned. In my view, for the reasons already mentioned above, so long as the petitioner traces the deemed export status of his supplies to clause 8.2(d)(i) of the Foreign Trade Policy, his entitlement to the benefit of exemption from terminal excise duty is determined not by the terms of the Notification aforementioned, but by the provisions under clause 8.2(d)(i) and 8.3(c) of the Foreign Trade Policy read with Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No.43/2001 C.E. (NT) dated 26.6.2001, as amended. Rule 19, which has been framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 37 (xvi)/(xvii) of the Central Excise Act, reads as follows: “RULE 19: Export without payment of duty:- (1) Any excisable goods may be exported without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, as may be approved by the Commissioner. (2) Any material may be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, for use in the manufacture or processing of goods which are exported, as may be approved by the Commissioner. (2) Any material may be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, for use in the manufacture or processing of goods which are exported, as may be approved by the Commissioner. (3) The export under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) shall be subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be specified by notification by the Board.” It is apparent therefore that once the petitioner complies with the requirements of the Notification issued in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, then his entitlement for the benefit of exemption from terminal excise duty has to be recognised in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8 of the Foreign Trade Policy read with the Central Excise Rules, as noted above. I therefore find that Ext.P8 communication, to the extent it denies the benefit of exemption from terminal excise duty to the petitioner, for removal of the two transformers, cannot be legally sustained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, by quashing Ext.P8, and declaring that the petitioner is entitled for exemption from terminal excise duty in respect of the supplies of the two transformers. It is brought to my notice by the learned senior counsel that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was permitted to clear the transformers on the strength of a bank guarantee furnished to the Central Excise Department. In view of the findings in this judgment, the respondents are now directed to return the bank guarantee to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.