2002 JTR(SC) 264
2002 143 ELT 19 ; 2002 10 SCC 64
Supreme Court Of India
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA
Versus
DHIREN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES
Decided on : February 21, 2002
Act Referred :CENTRAL EXCISE ACT : S.37(b), S.5(a)
Central Excise Act, 1944, Sections 37B and 5A - Interpretation of phrase- Constitution Bench in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3(S.C.), interpreted the phrase "on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid" in favour of the Revenue- However, it also held that, if there were circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs placing a different interpretation upon that phrase, that interpretation would be binding on the Revenue- Therefore appellant was bound by the circulars so issued- Appeal dismissed. [Para 1]
Central Excise Act, 1944, Sections 37B and 5A - Interpretation of phrase- Constitution Bench in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3(S.C.), interpreted the phrase "on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid" in favour of the Revenue- However, it also held that, if there were circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs placing a different interpretation upon that phrase, that interpretation would be binding on the Revenue- Therefore appellant was bound by the circulars so issued- Appeal dismissed. [Para 1]
( 1 ) THE issue involved in these appeals is covered by the decision of a constitution Bench in CCE v. Dhiren Chemical Industries. The Constitution bench interpreted the phrase "on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid" in favour of the Revenue. However, it held that, regardless of the interpretation placed by it on that phrase, if there were circulars which had been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which placed a different interpretation upon that phrase, that interpretation would be binding on the Revenue. It is not disputed that there are circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which place a different interpretation upon that phrase and which apply to the facts of these two appeals. For that reason these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.