2024 (10) TMI 1058 - HC - Central Excise

Interpretation of Para 9.24 of Hand Book of Procedure 1997-2002 regarding bunching of products for DTA sale within the six-digit HS Code - Whether the Department can be permitted to raise eyebrows on the decision of the Development Commissioner? - HELD THAT - In view of judgment in the case of Ginni International Ltd. 2001 (9) TMI 165 - CEGAT COURT NO. IV NEW DELHI which got the stamp of approval from the Apex Court coupled with the ratio decidendi in the case of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd 2007 (4) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT it can be safely held that the revenue cannot go beyond or behind the decision of the Development Commissioner. It is unable to read any such power in Section 3 (1) of the Central Excise Act 1944 and Rule 100 (A) of Central Excise Rules 1944 which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. Thus there are no reason to interfere in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Para 9.24 of Hand Book of Procedure 1997-2002 regarding bunching of products for DTA sale within the six-digit HS Code.
2. Justification of CESTAT's decision in dismissing the appeal filed by revenue against the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs.
3. Whether the Development Commissioner's decision should be binding on the revenue department.

Analysis:
1. The core issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Para 9.24 of the Hand Book of Procedure 1997-2002 concerning the bunching of products for DTA sale within the six-digit HS Code. The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, argued that the Development Commissioner erroneously treated different products as a single item, violating the HS Code classification. The appellant contended that the removal of the six-digit HS Code requirement post-April 1998 did not apply retrospectively to the period in question (September 1997 to March 1999).

2. The appellant challenged the CESTAT's decision to uphold the order without delving into whether the Development Commissioner's decision to permit bunching of goods under different HS Codes was justified. The appellant argued that the Department's contention regarding the fulfillment of the six-digit HS Code requirement was essential as per the Exim Policy, and the Development Commissioner's decision should not override this requirement.

3. The respondent, relying on precedent, argued that once the Development Commissioner has permitted the sale of goods within specified limits, the revenue department cannot dispute or demand Central Excise duty beyond the permission granted. The respondent cited the case of Ginni International Ltd., where the Tribunal held that the revenue department cannot go beyond the permission granted by the Competent Authority, i.e., the Development Commissioner.

4. The High Court, after considering the arguments and precedents, held that the revenue department cannot challenge or override the decision of the Development Commissioner regarding the sale of goods within specified limits. The Court emphasized that the revenue department must abide by the permissions granted by the Competent Authority and cannot impose additional restrictions beyond what was permitted. The Court found no grounds to interfere in the appeal and dismissed it, citing the precedent established by the Apex Court in similar cases.

5. The judgment underscores the principle that the decisions of the Competent Authority, such as the Development Commissioner, must be respected and followed by the revenue department, and any disputes regarding such permissions should be addressed through the appropriate channels rather than challenging the decisions unilaterally.

← Previous Next →