TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides that the appeal under s. 260A shall not be filed before the High Court by the IT Department from the judgment of the Tribunal where tax effect does not exceed ₹ 2 lakhs. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that in the present appeal, the issues raised by the Revenue have tax effect of ₹ 1,65,000 only and therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid circular, the appeal is not maintainable. He relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Camco Colour Co. (2002) 173 CTR (Bom) 255: (2002) 254 ITR 565(Bom). 4. That the circular issued by the CBDT is binding on the IT Department on administration side does not seem to be in doubt. There are good number of cases under the Central Excise Act, 1944 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the circular issued by the Board not in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court or the High Court was not binding on the Department. In any case. In Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. also, it has been held that the Board's circular or instructions are no doubt binding on the authorities under the Act. 9. In Simplex Castings Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs 2003 (155) ELT 5 (SC) again, the legal position was reiterated that it was not open to the Department to challenge the circular issued by the Board. 10. The Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries (2002) 172 CTR (SC) 670: 2002 (139) ELT 3 (SC), held in an unequivocal terms that the circulars issued by the CBEC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of Board circulars, demurrage would still be includible in the assessable value of the imported goods. For the purposes of these appeals, it is sufficient to hold, as we do, that demurrage was wrongly included by the adjudicating officer in the assessable value contrary to the directive of the CBEC at a time when the circular had not been withdrawn. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed with costs. 13. P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. agreed with Ruma Pal, J. that the Revenue appeal was liable to be dismissed in the light of the circular dt. 14th Aug., 1991 issued by the CBEC. However the reference was made to the Constitution Bench as some doubt was expressed by His Lordship Venkatarama Reddi, J. in the two Dhire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove circular, the Revenue has chosen to file the present appeal knowing fully well that the corridors of the Courts are flooded with pending litigations, the presentation of this appeal is quite contrary to the instruction issued in the circular which is binding on the Revenue. In the above view of the matter, considering the instructions issued by the CBDT, we are satisfied that the Board has taken a policy decision not to file appeal in a type of case in hand and the same is binding on the Revenue (appellant herein). In the result, we dismiss this appeal on this count in limine with no order as to costs. 15. In so far as the present controversy is concerned, it is squarely covered by the Division Bench of this Court in Camco Colour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
