9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the vires of Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and quashing of the order dated 23-2-1989 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). Analysis: The petitioners challenged the vires of Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and sought to quash the order dated 23-2-1989 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The petitioners, through their advocate, clarified that they were now only challenging the order dated 23-2-1989. The main contention was that the Collector (Appeals) had disregarded the Trade Notice issued under Section 37B of the Act, which was binding on him regarding the classification of goods. The relevant part of Section 37B empowers the Central Board of Excise and Customs to issue orders, instructions, and directions for uniformity in the classification of excisable goods or levy of duties. It was highlighted that while such orders are not binding on the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in his appellate functions, they must be considered for achieving uniformity and avoiding discrimination. The judgment emphasized that if orders, instructions, or directions are issued for the classification of goods to achieve uniformity, they must be considered binding on Central Excise Officers for that purpose. Even the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) should take such orders into account to maintain consistency unless they are contrary to law. In this case, it was found that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had not considered the Trade Notice as required, leading to the quashing of the order dated 23-2-1989. The court directed the Collector to decide the appeal afresh, taking into account the Trade Notice and in accordance with the law to ensure consistency and uniformity in classification. The petition was allowed, and the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was quashed and set aside, with directions for a fresh decision in line with the Trade Notice and legal provisions.
|
