Dismissed¶16-G

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

Supreme Court13 Aug 20082008 INSC 935 · [2008] 12 S.C.R. 762008 INSC 935

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Supreme Court of India (Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.; decision dated August 13, 2008) dismissed the assessees' appeals (including Civil Appeal No. 7177 of 2005) against the CESTAT order: Circular No. 42 of 1997 dated 19-9-1997 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, being in direct conflict with exemption Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 4-1-1995 as amended, issued under s. 5A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, could not override or whittle down the statutory notification; the claim to pay only 50% of the aggregated customs duty on clearances to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) was rejected.

What did the court decide?

A Circular cannot take away the effect of Notifications statutorily issued. ¶16-E

M/S. Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum — Supreme Court (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

"" .... . ·

¶2

[2008]12 S.C.R. 76

¶3

A MIS. SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS LTD.

¶4

II.

¶5

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM (Civil Appeal No. 7177 of 2005)

¶6

. AUGUST 13; 2008

¶7

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT. AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]

¶8

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 - Effectiveness of the circular- Held:· The circular cannot take away the effect of the Notification.

¶9

Circular No.42 of 1997 dated 19-9-1997 issued by the

¶10

0 Central Board of Excise and Customs was in direct conflict 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 NQtificetions Nos. 21/97- · CE dated 11-4-1997: 100/95-CE dated 2-6-1995 and 7/96-

¶11

E CE dated 1-7-1996.

¶12

. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (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.

¶13

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 Notification would riot stand on the way of relief being granted to them on basis of the said circular.

¶14

Dismissing the appeals, the Court
'
76
H
' , • • .r • • • . .. . .· . ' . ·;i . · .•

¶15

SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS V. C. C. E, BELGAUM MALWA COTTON & SPINNING MILLS l:TD. v. VIRSA 77 77

¶16

	78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.	I 'i=
A	C EST AT held that the Notification 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 overriding effect over the Circular. It held that thereisno mannerofdoubt that the appellant's claimofliability to pay 50%	.{
8	^{ofthe aggregated customs duty on the goods clea·red to the} Dom~sticTariff Area (in short the 'DTA')isnot legally tenable. It was held that the Circular wasindirect 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 issuedonthe basis of representations made by variousas~esseesand therefore the Notification can- not stand on the way of relief being granted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
0	submitedthat the Notificatioh which is statutorily issued has overriding effect because the Notifications areisuedin exer- ciseofpowers conferred by sub-section (1)ofSection 5Aof the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act').	~ t::
	5.The issue relating to effectivenessofa Circular con-
E	^{trary to a Notification statutorily issued has been .examined by} this Courtinseveral cases. A Circular cannot take away the effectofNotifications statutorily issued.Infact ·incertain cases it has been held that the Circularcannot whittle down the Ex- emption Notification and restrict the scopeofthe 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 scopeof the exemption or restricting or whittling it down cannot be im- · posed. The principle is applicable to the instant cases also, though the controversy. is of different nature.	J._
G	6. The appeals fail and are dismissed.
	B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.	;....

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State (Nct of Delhi) versus Ahmed Jaan

Aizaz & Ors. versus State of U.P.

Vasudev versus Parvinder Kumar & Ors.

Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. versus Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.

Arjun Mahto versus State of Bihar

Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. versus Gajendra Haldea and Ors.