9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d duty free benefit under the Notification No. 51/2000-Cus., dated 24-4-2000. The applicants filed the Bill of Entry No. 438727 dated 5-3-2001. The goods were shipped from Port Jebel Ali (UAE) against the invoice issued by M/s. Hawk Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Singapore. All the import documents such as invoice, certificate of origin showed that the goods were of Indian origin. The goods were provisionally assessed pending receipt of the clarifications from the DGFT and the Ministry of Finance as to whether the benefit of the said Notification can be extended to the goods of Indian Origin. 3. The Ministry of Finance in consultation with D.G.F.T., vide their letter F.No. 605/64/2001-DBK dated 11-7-2002, decided that duty free import of Indian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcular No. 18(RE-01)/2001-2002 dated 10-1-2002 will not apply to the Advance Licence issued prior to 10-1-02 and has relied upon the Order of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Anvil Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI [2004 (173) E.L.T. 122 (Cal.)] and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum [2008 (157) ECR 101 (S.C.)]. 6. The ld. SDR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities below. He contended that the Circulars issued by the Ministry/CBEC are binding on the departmental authorities and they cannot take a contrary stand. He prayed for putting the applicants to terms. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and Wire Industries [2008 (231) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 416 (S.C.)] has held that a Circular contrary to the statutory provisions has no existence law. The Supreme Court held so after discussing and clarifying their earlier judgments in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and 2002 (143) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) in which it was held that the C.B.E.&C Circulars are binding on the Revenue even if these are placing different interpretation than that given by the Supreme Court. 9. Prima facie, the applicants have made out a strong case for the complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty demanded. Accordingly, we dispense with the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 71,52,499/- and stay recovery the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
