M/S. Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. F ~ 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 A 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 SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS V. C. C. E, BELGAUM 77 'i= A C EST AT held that the Notificat ion No. 2/95-C E dated 4.1 .1995 .{ as amended by Notifications Nos. 21 /97 -CE dated 11.4.1997. 100/95-CE dated 2.6.1995 and 7/96-CE dated 1.7.1996 shall have overr iding effect over the Circular. It held that there is no manner of doubt that the appellant's claim of liability to pay 50% 8 of the aggregated customs duty on the goods clea·red to the Dom~stic Tariff Area (in short the 'DTA') is not legally tenable . It )-- was held that the Circular was in direct conflict with the Notifica- tion No. 2/95. t' 3. Learned counsel for the appellant in each case submit- c ted that the Circular was issued on the basis of representat ions made by various as~essees and therefore the Notification can- not stand on the way of relief being granted . 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand 0 submit~ed that the Notificat ioh which is statutorily issued has overriding effect because the Notifications are i~sued in exer- cise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). ~ t:: 5. The issue relating to effectiveness of a Circular con- E trary to a Notification statutorily issued has been .examined by this Court in several cases. A Circular cannot take away the effect of Notifications 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 Exemption F Notification or hit it down. In other words it was held that by issu- ing a circular a new condition thereby restricting the scope of J._ the exemption or restricting or whittl ing it down cannot be im- · posed . The principle is applicable to the instant cases also, though the controversy . is of different nature. G 6. The appeals fail and are dismissed . B.B.B. Appeals dismissed. ;....