Supreme Court Upholds Circular on DEPB Scheme, Dismisses Petitioner Association's Challenge

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner association's challenge to a Circular on the DEPB Scheme, holding that interest could be levied under the Customs Act as DEPB scrips allow duty payment, not exemption. The court refused a Larger Bench reference on conflicting views regarding education cess on Customs duty in DEPB licenses, citing a previous judgment's direct addressal of the issue. Additionally, the court ruled that an association cannot file a writ petition on behalf of individual members, leading to the dismissal of the petitions without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Circular on DEPB Scheme, Levying of interest under Customs Act, Difference between DEEC and DEPB schemes, Judicial divergence on education cess, Referral to Larger Bench, Association's locus standi in filing writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an association, challenged a Circular related to the DEPB Scheme, alleging that interest was being levied under the Customs Act without considering it as an exemption from Customs duty. The Supreme Court's distinction between DEEC and DEPB schemes clarifies that DEPB scrips allow duty payment, not duty exemption. A previous decision upheld interest payment under DEPB Scheme, emphasizing that goods cleared under DEPB are not exempt but duty-paid. Thus, the petitioner's claim was dismissed based on this precedent.

The petitioner argued for a Larger Bench reference due to conflicting views on education cess on Customs duty debited in DEPB licenses. However, the court rejected this request citing that the issue was directly addressed in a previous judgment, unlike the education cess matter. The court highlighted that the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court was not considered in the conflicting decision, leading to the dismissal of the Larger Bench referral request.

Additionally, the court noted that as per a Supreme Court decision, an association cannot file a writ petition on behalf of individual members. Therefore, the court found it untenable to entertain the writ petitions filed by the association. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed without imposing any costs.

---