COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), PATNA Vs. HANUMAN MARBLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE filed these applications for staying the operation of the Order -in -Appeal No. 34/Pat/Cus/Appeal/2012, dated 27 -2 -2012, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order of the adjudicating authority, vide which proceedings against the respondent were dropped.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Spl. Counsel appearing for the Revenue is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on the ground that the Indo -Nepal Treaty will have the overriding effect over the conditions of the notification. The contention is that the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue is not correct on the following grounds -

(3.) ON the other hand, the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent is that the Board vide its Circular No. 112/2003 -Cus., dated 31 -12 -2003 clarified that Indo -Nepal Treaty will override the conditions of the notification. The contention of the learned Advocate is that the Boards Circular is binding on the Departmental Officer, since the said Circular has not been modified or withdrawn. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate for the respondent placed reliance on the Honble Supreme Courts decisions in the case of CCEx., Bolpur v. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 416 (S.C.) and in the case of Collector v. Dhiren Chemical Industries reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). It is also the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent that the proceedings against them were dropped by the lower adjudicating authority as well as by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).