2004 (3) TMI 776

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h March, 2000 issued by the CBDT (for short 'the Board') which provides that the appeal under s. 260A shall not be filed before the High Court by the IT Department from the judgment of the Tribunal where tax effect does not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that in the present appeal, the issues raised by the Revenue have tax effect of Rs. 1,65,000 only and therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid circular, the appeal is not maintainable. He relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Camco Colour Co. (2002) 173 CTR (Bom) 255: (2002) 254 ITR 565(Bom). 4. That the circular issued by the CBDT is binding on the IT Department on administration side does not seem to be in doubt. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....verruled by the Supreme Court to the extent it was held therein that the circular issued by the Board not in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court or the High Court was not binding on the Department. In any case. In Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. also, it has been held that the Board's circular or instructions are no doubt binding on the authorities under the Act. 9. In Simplex Castings Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs 2003 (155) ELT 5 (SC) again, the legal position was reiterated that it was not open to the Department to challenge the circular issued by the Board. 10. The Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries (2002) 172 CTR (SC) 670: 2002 (139) ELT 3 (SC),....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it is not necessary for us to determine the further issue whether in the absence of Board circulars, demurrage would still be includible in the assessable value of the imported goods. For the purposes of these appeals, it is sufficient to hold, as we do, that demurrage was wrongly included by the adjudicating officer in the assessable value contrary to the directive of the CBEC at a time when the circular had not been withdrawn. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed with costs." 13. P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. agreed with Ruma Pal, J. that the Revenue appeal was liable to be dismissed in the light of the circular dt. 14th Aug., 1991 issued by the CBEC. However the reference was made to the Constitution Bench as ....