9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of duty. No doubt the aforesaid circular is withdrawn by Circular dated 14th August, 1997. Still, however, at the relevant time neither the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) can be said to be in any way illegal or erroneous nor it was open to the Department to challenge the said order. As a result, the appeals are allowed and impugned judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside - 2294 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 2-4-2003 - M.B. Shah and Arun Kumar, JJ. [Order]. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgments and orders dated 9th May, 2000 and 10th August, 2000 in Appeal No. C/1663/92-B passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exempting auxiliary duty. It is admitted fact that in April, 1992 final assessment order was passed by the Assistant Collector, Customs Department not granting benefit of the notifications. Against that order appeal preferred by the assessee before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), was allowed and benefit of exemption notifications was granted on the basis of the Board's circular dated 12-7-1989. 4.Against that judgment and order passed by the Collector of Customs, the Department preferred the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal. That appeal was allowed by the Tribunal relying upon the decision rendered by this Court in Kesoram Rayon v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta - 1996 (5) SCC 576. In our view, the question involved in these appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o this Court, of far greater importance than the winning 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.In view of the aforesaid clear pronunciation by this Court, in our view it was not open to the Department to prefer the appeal before the Tribunal contrary to what has been laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
