Court upholds Circular F. No. 267/11/2010-CX. 8, petitioner's contentions considered, show cause notices remain.

The Court declined to quash Circular F. No. 267/11/2010-CX. 8, finding it would not impact pending proceedings. Show cause notices were not quashed as the Commissioner would decide based on submissions. The petitioner's argument on the retrospective effect of amended rules could be raised before the Commissioner. The Court allowed the petitioner to present legal contentions and case law for consideration, directing the Commissioner to decide the matter after a hearing and pass orders in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to Circular F. No. 267/11/2010-CX. 8 issued by the Government of India.
2. Challenge to judgment by CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
3. Quashing of show cause notices dated 12-12-2007, 30-9-2008, 7-5-2009, and 26-11-2009.
4. Interpretation of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
5. Legal contentions regarding the retrospective effect of amendments.
6. Application of case law regarding prospectivity of notifications.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, M/s. Jindal Stainless Ltd., sought a writ of certiorari to challenge Circular F. No. 267/11/2010-CX. 8 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and the judgment by CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioner contended that the circular was issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for uniformity in the classification of excisable goods and levy of excise duties. The circular referred to an amendment clarifying the retrospective effect of certain rules.

2. The Revenue defended the circular based on the Full Bench decision of CESTAT and the CENVAT Credit (Amendment) Rules, 2009. The Revenue argued that challenging the circular was not valid without contesting the validity of the amendment rules. The Court noted that the Commissioner would decide the cases on their merits, independent of the circular, as stated in the counter affidavit.

3. The Court found that since the circular would not influence the pending proceedings, there was no need to quash it. Regarding the show cause notices, the Court held that the petitioner had already submitted replies, and the Commissioner would decide based on legal and factual aspects raised by the petitioner. The petitioner's contention that the amended rules had no retrospective effect could be raised before the Commissioner for consideration.

4. The petitioner relied on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court regarding the prospectivity of a notification. The Court allowed the petitioner to present all legal contentions and case law before the Commissioner for consideration and disposal. The Court directed the Commissioner to decide the matter after providing a hearing and to pass orders in accordance with the law, considering the pendency of the case before the court since a specific date.

---