9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the export of groundnut Kernel which was liable to Cess both under Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 and Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Cess Act, 1985 at the rate of 0.5% of the FOB value. It was the respondent s contention that they were liable to cess under Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 and since that has been paid by them, they were not liable to pay another cess under the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Cess Act, 1985. However, their plea was not accepted they were forced to pay cess under both the Acts. Subsequently they filed a letter of protest on 2-12-2003 stating that they are not liable to pay double cess and the second payment was made under protest. They also filed refund claim for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the express provision of law and cited certain decisions to that effect, namely, in the case of Kalyani Packaging Industry v. Union of India - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Board s Circular cannot prevail over the law laid down by the Supreme Court, Prashant Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CC - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 844 (Del.) wherein the Delhi High Court has held that Circular issued by the DGFT cannot change the Exim Policy. 4. The Advocate for the respondents, however, submits that the Circulars issued by the Board are binding and refers to the Supreme Court s decision in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemicals Industries - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2001 (47) RLT 881 (SC) and therefore the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law are interpreted by the Supreme Court to be otherwise, the Circulars issued by the Board which are beneficial to the assessee shall be binding on the Revenue. In view of the same, the Revenue s appeal has no merits and accordingly the same is rejected. 6. As far as the appeal filed by M/s.Vishal Export Overseas Limited is concerned, their plea is that once it was held by the Commissioner (Appeals) that cess cannot be charged twice it was not open to the Revenue to reopen the issue is not correct. There is no estoppel against the law and wrong decision cannot hold field in perpetuity. As far as the payment of duty under mistake of law is concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
