2006 (5) TMI 429 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 2/95 regarding payment of duty on goods cleared to Domestic Tariff Area.
2. Conflict between Notification 2/95 and Board's Circular No. 42/97.
3. Applicability of Circular issued by the Board in relation to the Notification.
4. Consideration of Central Value Duty (CVD) under Notification 2/95.
5. Legal position on the overriding effect of Notification over Circular.
6. Remedies available for challenging tribunal's decision.

Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal examined the issue of duty payment on goods cleared to Domestic Tariff Area under Notification 2/95. The appellants cleared goods under para 9.9(f) of the EXIM Policy, leading to a finding that the benefits of Notification 2/95 did not apply to them. Despite the Board's Circular granting exemption, the Tribunal held that the Notification prevailed as it has the force of law. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the original order and dismissed the appeals.

2. The conflict between Notification 2/95 and Board's Circular No. 42/97 was a key point of contention. The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in not recognizing the binding nature of the Circular, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal, however, maintained its stance that the Notification held precedence over the Circular, emphasizing the legal significance of the Notification in this context.

3. The argument regarding the applicability of the Circular issued by the Board was raised by the appellants, contending that the Tribunal overlooked its binding nature. The Tribunal, supported by legal precedents, reiterated the primacy of the Notification and the legal weight it carries, thereby justifying its decision to uphold the lower authority's orders.

4. The consideration of Central Value Duty (CVD) under Notification 2/95 during the disputed period was highlighted by the appellants as a factor that was allegedly not taken into account by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal, after careful review, found no merit in this argument and upheld its original decision based on the prevailing legal provisions.

5. The Tribunal emphasized the overriding effect of the Notification over the Board's Circular, asserting that the Notification, being a legal mandate, takes precedence. It clarified that any challenge to this interpretation should be pursued through appropriate legal channels rather than through a Review of Order in the present context.

6. Regarding the remedies available for challenging the tribunal's decision, the Tribunal rejected the Review of Order applications, citing legal principles that dictate the limited scope of such petitions. It clarified that rectification of mistake could only be considered in cases where the error is glaring and admits no ambiguity, as established in legal precedents referenced during the proceedings.