Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. On a reference made by a Bench of three Judges in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, Calcutta [JT 2005(6) SC 77], these matters were placed before this Bench. The reference was necessitated because of certain observations by a Constitution Bench in Collector of Central Excise v. Dhiren Chemical Industries [JT 2001 (10) SC 456]. 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 (1997 (7) SCC 47) on which the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal placed reliance was overruled by the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench in Dhiren Chemicals case (supra). But learned counsel for the assessee-respondent submitted that paragraph 11 of Dhiren Chemicals 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."

2. It was noted by the three-Judge Bench that the effect of the aforesaid observations was noted in several decisions. In Kalyani Packaging Industry v. Union of India and Anr. (2004 (6) SCC 719), it was noted as follows:

"We have noticed that para 9 of Dhiren Chemical case (2004 (6) SCC 722) is being _ misunderstood. It, therefore, becomes necessary to clarify para 9 of Dhiren Chemical case (2004 (6) SCC 722). One of us (Variava, J.) was a party to the judgment of Dhiren Chemical case and knows what was the intention in incorporating para 9. It must be remembered that law laid down by this Court is law of the land. The law so laid down is binding on all courts/tribunals and bodies. It is clear that circulars of the Board cannot prevail over the law laid down by this Court. However, it was pointed out that during hearing of Dhiren Chemical casE,3 because of the circulars of the Board in many cases the Department had granted benefits of exemption notifications. It was submitted that on the interpretation now given by this Court in Dhiren Chemical case the Revenue was likely to reopen cases. Thus para 9 was incorporated to ensure that in •cases where benefits of exemption notification had already been granted, the Revenue would remain bound. The purpose was to see that such cases were not reopened. However, this did not mean that even in cases where the Revenue/Department had already contended that the benefit of an exemption notification was not available, and the matter was sub judice before a court or a tribunal, the court or tribunal would also give effect to circulars of the Board in preference to a decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court. Where as a result of dispute the matter is sub judice, a court/tribunal is, after Dhiren Chemical case, bound to interpret as set out in that judgment. To hold otherwise and to interpret in the manner suggested would mean that courts/tribunals have to ignore a judgment of this Court and follow circulars of the Board. That was not what was meant by para 9 of Dhiren Chemical case."

3. The three-Judge Bench agreed with the view expressed in Kalyanis case (supra) and observed that the view about invalidation was sufficient to clarify the observations in paragraph 9 of Dhiren Chemicals case (supra). On taking note of the fact that Dhiren Chemicals case (supra) was decided by a bench of five Judges it was felt appropriate that a bench of similar strength should clarify the position. That is why reference was made.

4. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the law declared by this Court is supreme law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘constitution’). The Circulars cannot be given primacy over the deci