TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court binds Central Excise Authorities to circular on yarn classification under Section 37B</h1> <h3>BIRLA JUTE AND INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF C. EX.</h3> The Court held that the circular issued under Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is binding on Central Excise Authorities and must be ... Departmental circulars and trade notices - Yarn - Writ jurisdiction Issues Involved:I. The effect of the said circular on the question of classification of the yarn.II. Classification of the yarn.III. Scope of interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution into questions of classification.I. The effect of the said circular on the question of classification of the yarnIt is not disputed that the circular is an instruction issued u/s 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioners contended that such instructions are binding on the taxing authorities and can grant relief even if the statutory provisions do not. The respondents argued that instructions are not binding on quasi-judicial authorities and cannot have retrospective effect. Several judicial decisions were cited by both parties to support their contentions. The Court found that while Central Excise Officers must follow Board instructions, quasi-judicial authorities must exercise independent judgment. The Court concluded that it is not open to the respondents to contend contrary to the circular that the yarn is classifiable under sub-heading 5504.39 and not 5504.32. The circular is beneficial to the petitioners and must be enforced by the Central Excise Authorities. The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the instructions cannot operate retrospectively, stating that the instructions clarify the classification and thus relate back to the introduction of the sub-heading.II. Classification of the yarnGiven the finding on the first issue, it is unnecessary to determine this dispute separately. Therefore, the question of res judicata raised by the petitioners is also not addressed.III. Scope of interference by the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution into questions of classificationThe dispute is not merely a question of classification but involves the application of S. 37B of the 1944 Act. The respondents argued that the impugned orders were passed before the circular was issued and thus cannot be set aside. The Court held that since the respondents cannot contend the yarn was classifiable under sub-heading 5504.39, they also cannot argue that the impugned orders, notices, and demands are correct. The instructions being classificatory relate back to the sub-heading's introduction. The Court cited several cases to support its jurisdiction to interfere under Article 226, concluding that the impugned orders are incorrect and based on a misconstruction of the relevant sub-headings.ConclusionThe writ application is allowed. The impugned notice dated 20-2-1990, orders dated 28-2-1990 and 30-8-1990, and demands raised on the basis thereof are set aside. The respondents are directed to classify the yarn under sub-heading 5504.32 of the Schedule to the Act in accordance with Circular No. 25/90 CX. 1 dated 26-11-1990. There will be no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
