Supreme Court of India
M/S. SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM on 13 August 2008
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
9
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
..
[2008]12 S.C.R. 76
A
B
MIS. SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS LTD.
II.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM (Civil Appeal No. 7177 of 2005)
. AUGUST 13; 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT. AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - s. 5A - Notification c under- Circular. issued by Central Board of Excise and Cus- · toms· in direct conflict with the statutory Notification - Effec-tiveness of the circular- Held:· The circular cannot take away the effect of the Notification.
Circular No.42 of 1997 dated 19-9-1997 issued by the 0 Central Board of Excise and Customs was in direct con-flict with a Notification statutorily issued under s.5A(1) of the Ceratral Excises and Salt Act, 1944, viz. No. 2/95-CE dated 4-1-1995 as ~~e.~.~~d ... py NQtifice~tions Nos. 21/97- · CE dated 11-4-1997: 100/95-CE dated 2-6-1995 and 7/96-E CE dated 1-7-1996.
. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tri-bunal (CESTAT) held that the Notification had overriding effect over the Circular and hence the assessee's claim of liability to pay 50% of th~ aggregated customs duty on F the goods cleared to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) was not legally tenable.
ln·.the instant appeals, the asses.see•appellants sub- · mitted that the Circular having been issued on basis of . G representations made by various assessees, the Notifi-cation would riot stand on the way of relief being granted to them on basis of the said circular.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
'
H
' , • • .r • • • . .. . .· . ' . ·;i . · .•
l ~
~
y
~
A
SINGH SIDHU & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
HELD: A . Circular ' cannot take away the ·effect .of No-A tifications statutorily issued. In fact, in certain cases it has-been held that the Circular cannot whittle down the .Ex-emption Notification and restrict the scope of the Exeinp-tion Notification or hit it down. In other words it was held that by issuing a circular, a new condition thereby restrict-B ing the scope of the exemption or restricting or whittling it down, ca.nnot be imposed. The principle is applicable . to the instant cases also, though the controversy is of different nature. [Para 5] [78,E-F]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7177 [c ]of 2005
From the final Judgment and Order No. 1173/2005 dated 19.7.2005 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. E/1139/2002
WITH
C.A. No. 5025 & 5024 of 2008 & 6897 of 2005
A.R. Madhav rao, Monish Panda and M.P. Davanath for t~e Appellant.
E
Navin Prakash and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respon-dent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 16719 of 2006 and 16947 of 2006.
2. In all these appeals common questions are involved and are directed against the judgment and final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short G the Tribunal). Since in appeals filed by the appellants common question of law is involved, there is no need to elaborately deal with .the factual aspects. Question is the effect of a circular is-sued by Central Board of Excise and Custom (in short the . 'Board') i.e. Circular No. 42 of 1997 dated 19.9.1997. The H