2009 (4) TMI 11 - SC - Central Excise

By issuing the clarifications/circulars they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the SC/HC declares the law on the question arising for consideration, circular should not be given effect contrary to the view expressed in a decision of this SC/HC - Revenue authorities can challenge the validity of circulars / clarifications.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in light of Supreme Court judgments, binding effect of circulars on revenue authorities, applicability of previous judgments on exemption notifications, clarification on the role of courts in interpreting statutory provisions and circulars.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Circulars and Supreme Court Judgments:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of interpreting circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs vis-`a-vis its own judgments. The Court emphasized that while circulars are binding on authorities under statutes, they do not override the law declared by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that it is the prerogative of the Court to interpret statutory provisions, and circulars contrary to the law have no legal standing. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding the decisions of the Court over executive circulars to maintain the rule of law.

2. Binding Effect of Circulars on Revenue Authorities:
The Court discussed the impact of circulars on revenue authorities in light of previous judgments. It was noted that circulars cannot restrict the right to challenge a decision through an appeal. Upholding circulars over the decisions of the Court would deny the opportunity for adjudication by higher courts, undermining the principles of legal supremacy and the right to appeal. The judgment emphasized that revenue authorities have the responsibility to question decisions rather than relying solely on circulars.

3. Applicability of Previous Judgments on Exemption Notifications:
The Court delved into the applicability of previous judgments on exemption notifications in the context of conflicting interpretations. The judgment referred to past cases where the Court clarified the intention behind specific paragraphs to ensure uniformity in interpretation. The Court highlighted the significance of adhering to the law laid down by the Court, even in cases where circulars had influenced past decisions, to prevent disputes and maintain legal consistency.

4. Role of Courts in Interpreting Statutory Provisions and Circulars:
The judgment underscored the role of courts in interpreting statutory provisions and circulars to uphold the rule of law. It clarified that courts are bound to declare the law based on statutory provisions, and circulars cannot supersede the legal pronouncements of the Court. The Court reaffirmed that the judiciary has the authority to interpret laws and that circulars contrary to statutory provisions hold no legal validity.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court remanded the present matter to be decided by the CESTAT, Mumbai, considering the relevance of a specific case. The judgment left all contentions open to the parties and disposed of the civil appeal and interim applications accordingly. The detailed analysis provided insights into the Court's stance on interpreting circulars, the binding effect of decisions, the application of past judgments, and the role of courts in upholding legal principles.