LexM/S. SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
..
"" ..... ·
[2008]12 S.C.R. 76
MIS. SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS LTD.
II.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM
(Civil Appeal No. 7177 of 2005)
. AUGUST 13; 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT. AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - s. 5A - Notification
c under- Circular. issued by Central Board of Excise and Cus- ·
toms· in direct conflict with the statutory Notification - Effec-
tiveness of the circular- Held:· The circular cannot take away
the effect of the Notification.
Circular No.42 of 1997 dated 19-9-1997 issued by the
0 Central Board of Excise and Customs was in direct con-
flict with a Notification statutorily issued under s.5A(1) of
the Ceratral Excises and Salt Act, 1944, viz. No. 2/95-CE
dated 4-1-1995 as ~~e.~.~~d ... py NQtifice~tions Nos. 21/97- ·
CE dated 11-4-1997: 100/95-CE dated 2-6-1995 and 7/96-
E CE dated 1-7-1996.
. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tri-
bunal (CESTAT) held that the Notification had overriding
effect over the Circular and hence the assessee's claim
of liability to pay 50% of th~ aggregated customs duty on
F the goods cleared to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) was
not legally tenable.
ln·.the instant appeals, the asses.see•appellants sub- ·
mitted that the Circular having been issued on basis of .
G representations made by various assessees, the Notifi-
cation would riot stand on the way of relief being granted
to them on basis of the said circular.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
'
H
76
' , • • .r • • •
.· .
. .. .
'
.
. ·;i
· .•
MALWA COTTON & SPINNING MILLS l:TD. v. VIRSA
77
SINGH SIDHU & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
).
HELD: A Circular cannot take away the ·effect .of No-
A
.
'
tifications statutorily issued. In fact, in certain cases it has-
been held that the Circular cannot whittle down the .Ex-
emption Notification and restrict the scope of the Exeinp-
tion Notification or hit it down. In other words it was held
that by issuing a circular, a new condition thereby restrict-
ing the scope of the exemption or restricting or whittling
B
~
it down, ca.nnot be imposed. The principle is applicable .
l
to the instant cases also, though the controversy is of
~
different nature. [Para 5] [78,E-F]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7177 c
of 2005
From the final Judgment and Order No. 1173/2005 dated
19.7.2005 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellant
Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. E/1139/2002
0
WITH
y
C.A. No. 5025 & 5024 of 2008 & 6897 of 2005
A.R. Madhav rao, Monish Panda and M.P. Davanath for
t~e Appellant.
E
Navin Prakash and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respon-
dent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos.
F
~
16719 of 2006 and 16947 of 2006.
2. In all these appeals common questions are involved and
are directed against the judgment and final order passed by
the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short G
the Tribunal). Since in appeals filed by the appellants common
A
question of law is involved, there is no need to elaborately deal
with .the factual aspects. Question is the effect of a circular is-
sued by Central Board of Excise and Custom (in short the
. 'Board') i.e. Circular No. 42 of 1997 dated 19.9.1997. The
H
SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS V. C. C. E, BELGAUM
77
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 12 S.C.R.
I
'i=
A C EST AT held that the Notification No. 2/95-C E dated 4.1 .1995
.{
as amended by Notifications Nos. 21 /97 -CE dated 11.4.1997.
100/95-CE dated 2.6.1995 and 7/96-CE dated 1.7.1996 shall
have overriding effect over the Circular. It held that there is no
manner of doubt that the appellant's claim of liability to pay 50%
8 of the aggregated customs duty on the goods clea·red to the
Dom~stic Tariff Area (in short the 'DTA') is not legally tenable. It
)--
was held that the Circular was in direct conflict with the Notifica-
tion No. 2/95.
t'
3. Learned counsel for the appellant in each case submit-
c ted that the Circular was issued on the basis of representations
made by various as~essees and therefore the Notification can-
not stand on the way of relief being granted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
0
submit~ed that the Notificatioh which is statutorily issued has
overriding effect because the Notifications are i~sued in exer-
cise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of
the Central Excises and Salt AcExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.