Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M/S. SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM

Decided
13 August 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 76 · 2008 INSC 935
Also cited as
  • (2008) 14 SCC 336 (5 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 16719 of 2006 and 16947 of 2006.

p. 77, margin F

2

In all these appeals common questions are involved and are directed against the judgment and final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the Tribunal). Since in appeals filed by the appellants common question of law is involved, there is no need to elaborately deal with .the factual aspects. Question is the effect of a circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Custom (in short the . 'Board') i.e. Circular No. 42 of 1997 dated 19.9.1997. The C EST AT held that the Notification No. 2/95-C E dated 4.1 .1995 as amended by Notifications Nos. 21 /97 -CE dated 11.4.1997. 100/95-CE dated 2.6.1995 and 7/96-CE dated 1.7.1996 shall have overriding effect over the Circular. It held that there is no manner of doubt that the appellant's claim of liability to pay 50% of the aggregated customs duty on the goods clea·red to the Dom~stic Tariff Area (in short the 'DTA') is not legally tenable. It was held that the Circular was in direct conflict with the Notification No. 2/95.

pp. 77–78, margin F

3

Learned counsel for the appellant in each case submitted that the Circular was issued on the basis of representations made by various as~essees and therefore the Notification cannot stand on the way of relief being granted.

p. 78, margin A

4

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submit~ed that the Notificatioh which is statutorily issued has overriding effect because the Notifications are i~sued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act').

p. 78, margin C

5

The issue relating to effectiveness of a Circular contrary to a Notification statutorily issued has been .examined by this Court in several cases. A Circular cannot take away the effect of Notifications statutorily issued. In fact ·in certain cases it has been held that the Circular cannot whittle down the Exemption Notification and restrict the scope of the Exemption Notification or hit it down. In other words it was held that by issuing a circular a new condition thereby restricting the scope of the exemption or restricting or whittling it down cannot be imposed. The principle is applicable to the instant cases also, though the controversy. is of different nature.

p. 78, margin C

6

The appeals fail and are dismissed. B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.

p. 78, margin G