Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 8659
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
The Central Board of Excise and Customs Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 002. – Appellant
Versus
M/s.V.V.D and Sons (Pvt) Ltd. – Respondent
W.A(MD) No.1044 of 2022 | C.M.P.(MD)No.8410 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: No appearance
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Muthu Venkatraman
Withdrawal of the Circular deemed sufficient to render the writ petition moot.
Headnote:The Central Excise Act, 1944; Petitioner's prayer for the declaration of Circular No.890/10/2009-CX as null and void was previously covered by Supreme Court decision on 18.12.2024 in Civil Appeal No.1766 of 2009. The Court noted the withdrawal of the circular in question by the Board as per the latest judgment, leading the Court to conclude the matter no longer survives. As a result, the writ appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. central excise circular withdrawal renders moot. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. writ appeal dismissed as infructuous. (Para 4) |
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
None appears for the appellant.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner /
respondent submits that the issue raised in this writ appeal stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered on 18.12.2024 in Civil Appeal No.1766 of 2009 . He further submits that the learned single Judge had relied on the decision rendered in Madhan Agro Industries (India) Private Limited passed by this Tribunal. The said decision was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem and that issue had ended in favour of the assessee.
3. We do not want to go into the said aspects. We notice that the prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1079 of 2009 was for declaration declaring that Circular No.890/10/2009-CX, dated 03.06.2009 issued by the board was null and void and contrary to the provision of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is seen from the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that this circular itself was withdrawn by the board. Paragraph No.
30 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows:-
“30. However, this understanding of the Board was clearly not in keeping with the General Notes in Chapter 33 of the HSN. Perhaps realizing the same, the Board then issued Circular No. 1007/14/2015- CX, dated 12.10.2015. Therein, it was noted that decisions had been rendered on the issue by Tribunals/Courts holding that, just because the retail packs of coconut oil were in sizes of 200 ml or less, the same could not be presumed to be meant for use as hair oil and the same would not be classifiable under Heading 3305. The Board, accordingly, withdrew the Circular dated 03.06.2009 and left the issue of classification of coconut oil packed in small containers of up to 200 ml to be decided in the field, taking into consideration judicial pronouncements and the facts of individual cases.”
4. We are therefore of the view that the issue raised in the writ petition no longer survives. The writ appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
No costs.
(G.R.S., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
26.02.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
rmi W.A.(MD) No.1044 of 2022
26.02.2025
