Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2011 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 116 - HC - Central ExciseLegality of Circular No. 929/19/2010-CX dated 29th June, 2010 - Decision of CESTAT in CCE vs. G.P.L. Polyfils Ltd (2005 -TMI - 93334 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI). - Revenue did not challenge the order of CESTAT but issued a contrary circular - Held that:- Supreme Court in C.K. Gangadharan and Anr. vs. CIT, Cochin, (2008 -TMI - 4694 - SUPREME COURT) has settled this issue - the Revenue can prefer appeals or take a contrary stand to what has been held by the tribunal even if they have not preferred an appeal, when a "just cause" is established and can be shown. Mere fact that the Revenue has not preferred an appeal or challenged the same, does not bar the Revenue from preferring an appeal or taking a different stand in another case where there is a just cause or it is in public interest to do so or when a pronouncement of the higher Court is different and/or divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts (other than jurisdictional High court). Validity of circular - Circular No. 929/19/2010-CX dated 29th June, 2010 - Classification of Polyester Staple Fibre manufactured out of PET scrap and waste bottles. - Paragraph 10 of the circular states that the decision of the Tribunal in GPL Polyfils Ltd (2005 -TMI - 93334 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI). would be relevant to the facts of that particular case and is not a binding precedent in other matters. It stipulates that even if the facts and the process are identical, other assessees cannot rely upon the decision in GPL Polyfils Ltd. before the Revenue authorities. - Held that:- Paragraph 10 of the impugned circular is struck down - The Assessing Officer and the authorities under the Act shall independently apply their mind and consider the judgment of tribunal in GPL Polyfills Ltd. (2005 -TMI - 93334 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) and keep in mind the observations and ratio of Supreme Court in C.K. Gangadharan and Anr. (2008 -TMI - 4694 - SUPREME COURT). The Assessing Officer/authorities will not be bound by the impugned circular. The circular can be referred for guidance but not as a binding mandate;
|