TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication No. 10346 of 2012 is taken as a lead matter. BRIEF FACTS: 2. Petitioner No.1 is Company being Messrs Mono Steel India Ltd. engaged in the business of manufacture of goods like sponge iron and the petitioner no. 2 is the Director of the petitioner Company. 2.1. The commercial production of the company commenced from December, 2005 and the goods manufactured by the petitioner company are excisable goods and hence, the petitioner company is paying customs duties on the goods manufactured in and cleared from the factory. 2.2. For the manufacture of sponge iron, one of the main raw material is iron ore and iron ore pellets which are being used by the petitioner company in relation to manufacture of its final products. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the petitioner company has been undertaken for demand of the additional customs duty. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Paresh Dave appearing for the petitioners at the out set has submitted that the impugned notification dated 23.03.2012 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (for short, "the Board") is required to be quashed and set aside since, the Board has tried to interject and impose the provisions of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, with Central Excise Act, 1944. 3.1. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s A.K. Impex (Judgments dated 28.03.2024 passed in CMA (MD) Nos. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tial customs duty from the petitioner from the date of the notification dated 06.04.2011 to 08.02.2012. 3.5. In this regard, learned advocate Mr. Dave has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur, 2007 (208) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). Thus, it is submitted that by the impugned circular, the Board issued a negative clarification since the Central Excise is levied on manufacture of goods in India, whereas Customs is levied on goods imported into India and they are governed by two separate and independent statutes. Thus, it is urged that the impugned circular may be set aside. 3.6. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has submitted that to the extent of retrospec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concentrates would amount to manufacture and it will be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that the writ petition may not be entertained. OPINION AND CONCLUSION: 5. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and as urged by learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioners, we are only examining the effect of the impugned circular dated 23.03.2012 whether it would be prospective in nature or retrospective. 5.1. It is not in dispute that prior to issuance of the aforesaid circular, the circular dated 26.02.2003 was operating in favour of the trade and the ore concentrates, which is under the Chapter Heading No. 2601 which was exempted and treated as Nil under the notification d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. Thus, it is concluded in the Conference that the benefit of exemption notification under Sr. No. 4 of the Notification 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 will be available only to imported Ores and not to imported Concentrates. 5. Suitable instructions may be given to the field formation and all pending assessments, if any, may be finalized accordingly. Difficulty faced, if any, may be brought to notice of the Board." 5.3. Thus, by the impugned circular, the Board has concluded that the exemption notification under Serial no. 4 of the notification under 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006 will be available only to imported goods and not to imported concentrates. 5.4. The circular appears to be clarificatory in nature, however, by the said....