2009 (11) TMI 675 - HC - Central Excise

Demand of duty with interest and penalty - manufacture of coconut oil packed and sold in containers up to 200 ml Held that - Reading of Ext. P7(b) order indicates that coconut oil packed and sold in packages of capacity up to 500 ml is not liable to be charged with excise duty in Raymon Glues & Chemicals (1999 (3) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD ) it was held that circulars and departmental clarifications issued by the department cannot operate when the field is occupied by a decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal - respondents cannot take the stand that they are entitled to depart from the stand taken by the Tribunal in Ext. P7(b) order - petitioner cannot be called upon to pay excise duty on the goods manufactured by them falling within the ambit of Ex. P7(b) order

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to circular, letter, and show cause notice regarding excise duty on coconut oil in containers up to 200 ml based on Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a coconut oil manufacturer, contested the validity of Ext. P8 circular, Ext. P9 letter, and Ext. P10(b) show cause notice issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. These documents sought to impose excise duty, penalty, and interest on the petitioner's products. The petitioner relied on the binding decision of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, as evidenced by Ext. P7(b) judgment, to argue that coconut oil in containers up to 200 ml should not be subject to excise duty. The respondents justified their actions by stating that a Civil Appeal had been filed in the Apex Court challenging the Tribunal's decision, which was admitted and pending for hearing. They contended that until the matter attains finality, they have the right to levy excise duty on the petitioner's goods.

The Court reviewed the Ext. P7(b) order and noted that it exempted coconut oil packed in containers up to 500 ml from excise duty. Referring to precedents like Raymon Glues & Chemicals v. Union of India and Century Rayon v. Union of India, the Court emphasized that departmental circulars and clarifications cannot override a Tribunal's decision in the same field. Notably, the Supreme Court had not stayed the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the Court concluded that the petitioner should not be compelled to pay excise duty on their products covered by the Ext. P7(b) order. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing that the parties' rights would be governed by the Tribunal's decision unless altered by the Apex Court's ruling in the pending appeals. If the Supreme Court overturns the Tribunal's judgment, the parties' rights would be determined by the Supreme Court's decision.