TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (5) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f irregular marbles slabs falling under Chapter 25 sub-heading No. 2504.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and attracting liability to pay excise duty. On October 13, 1988, the officers of the Excise and Customs Department conducted a survey at the business premises of petitioner's Company and found that the said Company had cleared 849.52 Sq. Mts. of marbles slabs, without payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,919.96. It further appears that on examination of the record pertaining to production of slabs and gate passes it was also found that during the period from October 9, 1988 to October 13, 1988 the petitioner's Company had cleared 330.05 Sq. Mts. of marbles slabs, without accounting for in RG 1 Register and without payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner could not be dropped. It is that order which is being challenged by way of this petition. 4.Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order/circular/guidelines issued by the Board were binding on the officers of the Department of the Excise and Customs Department and therefore, the complaint filed in contravention of the binding circulars was not maintainable. In support of his contention Mr. Kasliwal relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of K.P. Verghees - 131 ITR 592. The learned counsel produced the relevant circulars before me. The copy of the order, dated 28 July, 1989 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs Division Jaipur, was also produced. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing prescribed. It was directed that prosecution should normally be launched where the duty evaded or attempted to be evaded was Rs. 10,000/- or more. In the cases involving amounts less than that prosecution should not ordinarily be launched. The cases or habitual offenders may be taken into account while deciding whether the prosecution was called for or not. 7.From the above guidelines it is evident that in order to avoid prosecution in minor cases it was considered proper by the Board that prosecution should not normally be launched in those cases where the duty avoided or attempted to be evaded was less than Rs. 10,000/-. Such guidelines were, however, not applicable to the cases of habitual offenders. 8.By a subsequent Circular ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alties, the Board could have decided not to enter into fruitless litigation in the cases involving negligible or less amounts of evaded excise duty. 10.Section 36B of the Act, empowers the Board issue orders, instruction and guidelines for the proper and effective administration of the Act, the language of Section 36B clearly suggests that once the orders instructions and directions are issued by the Board to the Central Excise Officers, such officers and all the persons employed in the execution of the Act shall observe and follow them. The language of the section, therefore, clearly speaks that the orders, instructions and directions issued by the Board to the Central Excise Officers would be having binding force. 11.In the case of ....