TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, we hold that the said circular is binding on the departmental officers. For the period prior to 15.05.2014 if the appellants have classified their products in question under Chapter Heading No. 8437 of CETA, no demand is sustainable in terms of the Circular No. 924/14/2010-CX dated 19.05.2010 - demand for the period with penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/01901/2011, E/56954,56966,58293,58295/2013 E/50488,50494,52488/2015, E/00084,60007/2016 - ORDER No.A/60300-60309 / 2019 - Dated:- 19-2-2019 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar Member (Technical) For Appellant (s) : Shr Vikrant Kackaria, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri Atul Handa, AR ORDER Per : Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders wherein the demand of duty has been confirmed by classifying their machinery as Par-boiling machines under heading No. 84.19 of CETA, 1985. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing Par-boiling machines and classifying the same under Chapter Heading No. 8437 of CETA, 1985. Revenue entertained a view that the said mach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on authorities and officials of Department. He also relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of UFLEX Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Noida 2016 (335) ELT 376 . He relied on the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Surat-I vs. Shreenath Fabrics 2014 (303) ELT 540 (Guj.). He further relied on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Auro Weaving Mills 2017 (345) ELT 350 (H.P.) to say that board circulars are binding on department so long as they remain in operation and not open to department to raise contention contrary to such circulars. He also relied on the decision of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Malwa Industries Ltd. 2010 (251) ELT 32 (P H ) to say that Revenue is precluded from challenging the correctness of the circular even on the ground of same being inconsistent with statutory provisions. He further submits that the beneficial circulars to be applied retrospectively while oppressive circular applicable prospective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Department, the Department is precluded from challenging the correctness of the said Circulars even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with the statutory provision. The ratio of the judgment of this Court further precludes the right of the Department to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the Circulars. Therefore, it is clear that so far as the Department is concerned, whatever action it has to take, the same will have to be consistent with the Circular which is in force at the relevant point of time. Further, in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries (supra), the Hon ble Apex Court observed as under:- 9. We need to made it clear that, regardless of the interpretation that we have placed on the said phrase, if there are circulars which have been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which place a different interpretation upon the said phrase, that interpretation will be binding upon the Revenue. Further, the Hon ble Apex Court came to the occasion to examine the said issue again in the case of Kalyani Packaging Industries (supra) wherein the Hon ble Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable to the present case. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the Department is also bound by the Circular dated 13-2-2003. Further, in the case of Shreenath Fabrics (supra), the Hon ble Gujarat High Court observed as under:- 4.3 While it may be that when the appeal was preferred, the circular dated 17-8-2011 was not issued. However, it appears from record that the appeal was posted before the Court first time on 11-12-2011 and the notice was issued on 12-11-2012. At the time of issuance of notice in the appeal, the circular dated 17-8-2011 was very much in force and the monetary limit of 10 lakhs provided therein was applicable. Had the said aspect been pointed out to the Court, the Court would not have issued the notice. In any way, when this appeal has come up for consideration, the circular is in vogue and the monetary limit applies. We, therefore, do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the appeal, as the disputed amount in the present appeal is below 10 lakhs. 4.4 The department is bound by its own Circular and the instruction thereof. We are informed that no other circular withdrawing or reducing the monetary limit has been issued by the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
