LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR versus MIS RATAN MELTING & WIRE INDUSTRIES
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 653 ~ COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR A v. MIS RATAN MELTING & WIRE INDUSTRIES (Civil Appeal No. 4022 of 1999) OCTOBER 14, 2008 B (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, HARJIT SINGH BEDI, P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. '( PANCHAL, JJ) Excise and Customs: c Circulars issued by Central Board of Excise and Gus- toms - HELD: Though are binding on authorities under the respective statutes, but cannot prevail over the law laid down on the subject by Supreme Court or High Court - It would not be correct to say that once a circular is brought to notice of D ~ Court, Revenue is precluded from taking a ground in appeal contrary to the Circular-In that event, there would be no scope for adjudication by Court - That would be against the very concept of majesty of law declared by Supreme Court and its binding effect in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution - Con- E stitution of India -Article 141. The instant appeals were filed by Revenue challeng- ing the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were listed before a three F --r Judge Bench. During the course of hearing it was con- ceded by the parties that the decision of the Supreme Court1 on which the Tribunal had placed reliance, was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Dhiren Chemical's2 case . The stand of the respondent-assessee, on the other hand, was that observations made in Dhiren Chemicals G ~ case regarding the binding effect of circulars were in its ' favour. The three Judge Bench, therefore, made the ref- erence to the larger Bench3 • 653 H 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A Answering the reference, allowing the appeals filed \-f- by Revenue and dismissing those filed by assessees, the Court HELD: 1.1 Circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs are no doubt bind- B ing in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a C decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clari- fications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of State Governments are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon Courts. It is for the Court, and D not for the Executive, to declare what the particular provi- sion of a statute says. Further, a circular which is con- trary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law. As noted in the order of reference, the correct po- sition vis-a-vis the observations in Dhiren ChemLcal's case · E has been stated in Kalyani's case. [para 6-7] [658-B-E] Kalyani Packaging Industry v. Union of India and Anr,, 2004 (6) sec 719 - upheld. Collector of Central Excise v. Dhiren Chemical lndus- F tries 2001 Supp. 5 SCR 607=2002 (2) SCC 127-referred to. 1.2 It would not be correct to say that once the circu- lar is. brought to the notice of the Court the challenge by the Revenue should be turned down and it cannot lodge an appeal taking a ground contrary to the circular. In that G event, there would be no question of a decision of this \ Court on the point being rendered. Obviously, the asses- )': see will not file an appeal questioning the view expressed .,. vis-a-vis the circular. It has to be the revenue authority who has to question that. To lay content with the circular H would mean that the valuable right of challenge would be ' COMMIN. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR v. MIS RATAN 655 MELTING & WIRE INDUSTS. ,- denied to him and there would be no scope for adjudica- A tion by the High Court or the Supreme Court. That would be against the very concept of majesty of law declared by this Court and its binding effect in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution. [para 5 and 7) [658-B; 658-F-H] CASE LAW REFERENCE B y 2001 Supp. 5 SCR 607 referred to para 1 ., 2004 (6) sec 119 upheld para 2 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4022 c - of 1999 ~ From the final Order No. E-72-99-B-1/2002 dated 22/1/ 1999 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribu- ( nal, New Delhi in Appeal No.E/4327/89-B-1 WITH D C.A. Nos. 1469 of2002, 3197of2000, 3589-3592 of2005 - and 4 789 of 2000 Mohan Parasaran, A.S.G., V. Shekar, Sudhir Malhotra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.