9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.09, the appellants claimed under Heading 52.05. 3. Heard Sri A.P. Datar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Sri R. Victor Thyagaraj, learned SDR for the revenue. 4. The learned Advocate submits that appellants claim under Heading 52.05 is supported by the following :- (a) Circular No. 22/88-CX. 1, dated 10-8-1988 of CBEC holds that grey tyre cord fabrics if not subjected to any other processes, would fall under Chapter 52 and not under Chapter 59. Spirit of this classification squarely applies in the instant case. (b) Circular No. 10/93, dated 5-11-1993 issued under Section 37B of Central Excises Salt Act by the CBEC also classifies the subject goods under Heading 52.05. (c) The Note 6 of Chapter 59 clearly i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r even for the period prior to November, 1993. This establishes a precedent practice in their favour. (i) The learned Advocate cites the following :- (i) Ranadey Micro Nutrients v. C.C.E. as reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19, wherein it is held that Board s circulars are binding on the department and the department cannot take stand contrary during the currency of those circulars. (ii) Krishna Fruit Products v. C.C.E. as reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 636 (T) wherein again it is held that Board s tariff advises are binding on the department. The learned Advocate therefore, submits that the Board s Circular of 1988 and 1993 would be binding on the department for classification under Heading 52.05. He further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the department or not. In this respect, we find that in view of the clear decision in the matter in the case of Ranadey Micro Nutrients v. C.C.E. supra and Krishna Fruit Products v. C.C.E. supra, it is now well established law that any order passed by the revenue under Section 37B ibid shall have binding effect on the department. 8. The next question to be considered by us is whether by Board s Circular dated 17-4-1997 supra, rescinding the earlier circulars of 1988 and 1993 supra, the classification of the subject goods under Heading 52.05 can be disputed for the period prior to the issue of the said circular i.e. 17-4-1997. We have carefully perused the said circular of 1997 and find that it rescinds the two earlier circulars mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the circular of the CBEC issued under Section 37B classifying the goods under Heading 52.05, by following the law established in the case of Ranadey Micro Nutrients supra which has already been discussed above. Since we have already held that in view of the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Ranadey Micro Nutrients supra and has followed by the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Fruit Products supra, under Section 37B circular of the Board would be binding on the department and since this very view has been held by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the Orders-in-Appeal impugned, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the said Orders in-Appeal impugned which compell us to interfere with the same. On this ground alone, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
