Order

Arijit Pasayat, J.—During hearing of this appeal it was fairly conceded by learned counsel for the parties that the decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries (1997(7) SCC 47) on which CEGAT placed reliance was over-ruled by a subsequent decision of a Constitution Bench in Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra v. Dhiren Chemical Industries (2002(2) SCC 127). But learned counsel for the respondent submitted that paragraph 11 of Dhiren Chemical’s case (supra) operates in its favour. It reads as follows:

“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.”

2. Subsequently, the effect of this observation was noted in several decisions. In Kalyani Packaging Industry v. Union of India & Anr. (2004(6) SCC 719) it was noted as follows :

“We have noticed that para 9 (para 11 in SCC) of Dhiren Chemical case (2004(6) SCC 722) is being misunderstood. It, therefore, becomes necessary to clarify pa