M/s. Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum

Judgment

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. Navin Prakash and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 16719 of 2006 and 16947 of 2006.

2In 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 question of law is involved, there is no need to elaborately deal with .the factual aspects. Question is the effect of a circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Custom (in short the . 'Board') i.e. Circular No. 42 of 1997 dated 19.9.1997. The SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS V. C. C. E, BELGAUM 77 78 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 Notification No. 2/95.

3Learned counsel for the appellant in each case submitc ted that the Circular was issued on the basis of representations made by various as~essees and therefore the Notification cannot stand on the way of relief being granted.

4Learned 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 exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act').

5The issue relating to effectiveness of a Circular con- E trary to a Notification statutorily issued has been .examined by this Court in several cases. A Circular cannot take away the effect of Notifications statutorily issued. In fact ·in certain cases it has been held that the Circular cannot whittle down the Exemption Notification and restrict the scope of the Exemption Notification or hit it down. In other words it was held that by issuing a circular a new condition thereby restricting the scope of the exemption or restricting or whittling it down cannot be im- · posed. The principle is applicable to the instant cases also, though the controversy. is of different nature.

6The appeals fail and are dismissed. B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.