1999 (8) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s is manufacturing (a) printed polyester films backed with paper; (b) printed polyester films backed with polythene films; and (c) printed polyester films backed with aluminium foils; all of which are used either as labels, pouches or wrappers. It is the contention of the appellant that by virtue of the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs (hereinafter referred to as `the Board') dated 23-7-1986 and clarificatory Circular issued by the Board dated 7-8-1987; the aforesaid products of the appellant are to be classified as the products of the printing industry subject to duty under Chapter 49 of the Schedule to the Central Excise & Tariff Act, 1985. Consequently, the appellants contend that their products are entitled to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctly, the appellant's appeals before us are devoid of any merit. 3.It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case elaborately in view of certain admitted facts. The respondent does not dispute that by virtue of Circular dated 23-7-1986 and as clarified by Circular dated 7-8-1987, the products manufactured by the appellant will have to be classified under Chapter 49 of the Act at the relevant time but it contends that the Circulars referred to above did not correctly reflect the correct classification and correct position is as clarified by subsequent Circular of the Board dated 16-1-1989 and also in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of India [1994 (72) E.L.T. 793], the Tribunal was justified .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing or losing of court proceedings. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Jayant Dalal Pvt. Ltd. [1998 (100) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.) = 1997 10 SCC 402], this Court has held that it is not open to the Revenue to advance an argument or even file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the Circulars issued by the Board. Similar is the view taken by this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Kores (India) Ltd. [1997 (89) E.L.T. 441 (S.C.) = 1997 10 SCC 338]. 5.It is clear from the above said pronouncements of this Court that, apart from the fact that the Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Department, the Department is precluded from challenging the correctness of the said Circular .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X