TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M. Ajit Kumar, These appeals are filed against Order in Original No. 19996/2012 dated 31.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport - Import), Chennai (impugned order). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the intelligence developed by DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit indicated that some importers including the appellants had imported consignments of polished (honed) marble slabs through Chennai Port by wrongly classifying them under CTH 6802 2110 of Customs Tariff Act and were availing benefit of exemption Notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, whereas such marble slabs were actually classifiable under CTH 6202 2190 and were chargeable to CVD @ 16%. After due process of law, the Ld. Commissioner rejected the classification adopte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. D) The confirmation of demand by invoking the extended period of limitation as provided in Section 28 is hence liable to be set aside. E) The Ld. Commissioner has grossly erred in imposing equivalent penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 in absence of any mens rea. The Ld. Counsel stated that it is settled position in law that in absence of any deliberate attempt to mis-declare etc. and resultant absence of mens rea to evade customs duty, penalty cannot be imposed on the Appellants. He prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 3.2 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the respondent has reiterated the points given in the impugned order. He further submitted that as per the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le mentioning the description of the excisable goods as 'marble slabs and tiles', refers to Customs Tariff Heading 6802 2110 and does not mention Customs Tariff Heading 6802 2190, leading to the confusion, which has culminated in the impugned order. 6. We find that a similar matter in the appellants own case (although not referred to by the appellant, perhaps because of it being an interim order), relating to waiver of pre-deposit has been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Akash Stone Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Cus. (Port-Import), Chennai [2014 (302) ELT 475 (Tri.-Chennai)]. Paragraph 5 of the Tribunal's decision is reproduced: "5. After considering the submissions by both sides, we find that Ministry's letter D.O.F. N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication No. 12/2012-C.E., dated 17th March, 2012 refers)." clearly clarified that the polished marble slabs and tiles are classifiable under C.T.H. No. 6802 2190 would be eligible for the benefit of exemption under the said notification." Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ORIENTAL TRIMEX LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [2018 (363) E.L.T. 398 (Tri. - Chennai)], relying on TRU's D.O. letter/ Circular dated 16.03.2012, decided a similar matter in favour of the appellant in the said appeal, while finding that the denial of benefit of notification was unjustified. Hence as per the Boards clarification the impugned goods, even if classifiable under CTH 6802 2190 as per the impugned order, are eligible for the benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in fact circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which gave a different interpretation to the phrase as interpreted by the Constitution Bench. The same view has also been taken in Simplex Castings Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Vishakhapatnam 2003 (5) SCC 528. The principles laid down by all these decisions are : (1) Although a circular is not binding on a Court or an assessee, It is not open to the Revenue to raise the contention that is contrary to a binding circular by the Board. When a circular remains in operation, the Revenue is bound by it and cannot be allowed to plead that it is not valid nor that it is contrary to the terms of the statute. (2) Despite the decision of this Court, the Department cannot be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inadvertently omitted the Customs Tariff Heading, it will be binding on the department officers. Moreover, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. v. Commissioner [2007 (208) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)], held that a beneficial Circular is to applied retrospectively. The relevant portion reads as under : - "We have heard Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Radhakrishna, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. We have perused the orders passed by the lower Authorities and also of the Tribunal. The point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4488 of 2005, Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. M/s. Mys....