1999 (10) TMI 67 - SC - Customs

Customs exemption for imported special-shaped refractory blocks: trade notice on eligibility must be followed; Revenue barred appeal allowed

The dominant issue was whether Customs could deny exemption under a notification for imported refractory blocks of special shape by disregarding an issued ... Claim for the benefit of an exemption notification in respect of refractory blocks of special shape imported - Tribunal, however, declined to take the trade notice into account on the ground that it could not enlarge the scope of the said notification - HELD THAT:- This Court has consistently held that the authorities are bound by the trade notices that they issue and cannot argue to the contrary [See Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (9) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT]. It was, therefore, not open to the Revenue to contend that for the said notification did not exempt refractory blocks. The trade notice issued by one Customs House must bind all Customs authorities and, if it is erroneous, it should be withdrawn or amended, which in the instant case, admittedly, has not been done. The civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. Issues Involved: The judgment dealt with the issue of claiming exemption under a notification for imported refractory blocks of special shape, interpretation of trade notices by Customs authorities, and the binding nature of trade notices issued by Customs Houses.Civil Appeal No. 6600 of 1995:The appellants sought exemption under a notification for refractory blocks of special shape. The Tribunal rejected the claim citing that a trade notice could not expand the scope of the notification. The Supreme Court held that Customs authorities are bound by trade notices they issue, and the Revenue cannot argue against them. The Court emphasized that the trade notice issued by one Customs House must bind all Customs authorities. As the trade notice was not withdrawn or amended, the appellants were entitled to the exemption. The civil appeal was allowed, the previous order was set aside, and the appellants were granted a refund of the payment made.Civil Appeal No. 6893 of 1996:This appeal was covered by the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6600 of 1995. The Court allowed the appeal, directing a refund of the payment made by the appellant in line with the previous judgment. No costs were awarded in this appeal.