- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) By order dated 12.12.2006 this Court had directed that the present matter be placed for disposal after the decision of this Court in CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, which had been referred to a larger bench. The larger bench has rendered its judgment in the matter on 14.10.2008 which is reported in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries 2008 (13) SCC 1.
(3.) On a reference made by a Bench of three Judges in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, Calcutta , these matters were placed before the Five Judge Bench. The reference was necessitated because of certain observations by a Constitution Bench in Collector of Central Excise v. Dhiren Chemical Industries . During the hearing of the appeal before the three-Judge Bench it was fairly conceded by the parties that the decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries on which the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal placed reliance was over-ruled by the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench in Dhiren Chemical s case (supra). But learned Counsel for the assessee-respondent submitted that paragraph 11 of Dhiren Chemical s case (supra) operates in its favour. It reads as under: We need to make it clear that regardless of the interpretation that we have placed on the said phrase, if there are circulars which have been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which place a different interpretation upon the said phrase, that interpretation will be binding upon the Revenue.;