‘Chronology of events 2 Letter Date of [Page No? | Annoxure ~~) Dated receipt! | Reference | Comments deposit } point No. ("Date of submission of Bil of entry 4r12108 +A I Date of detection of fraud by custome: ‘Apr 2011 | (came toknow through imporiey irs the month of march 2012 when importer eppeared for etaxement in ICD TKD) Fits should be called upon ia Trina’ to fix this date) | Date of first official submission of fetter by ero | RAT [22 appellant. (Bacumertc ts 0 6:9 SID investi fe OF ID THD ) | i ee ey na cheng eee eee om | First statement as per order 1 yo | OM ‘4-4 point 7 | DO vatamentea pecarter? 7) | aust Letter " 5/712 44 ‘One year late from from Gommiisioner (IGD-TKD) to Commissioner (186) | ejerence point 2 detection of offence. pe as pet Order 1 ps 128 days late from the {Date of reporting of fratsd) ‘regulation Teummon 202) Violation of immedi \ & ‘suspension ale 7.2.—| ne (S0uays) 4 Yetaten ete 7-4 ss @emonths) Pyclan suppenne 1 Sceparsien i DI without intimation [enna 38 Win 77 days from sz 0K 98 per2022) 4. + of Commissioner (8G) § etter off TIA ame |e 7) Fost PAdate, But Commi-sioneri&Gherself | 27/7712 | was ansent | Second BH held on ware 7 Tdays own ST {intimatad through phone on 3/8/12, Letter reed (2cdays tate) BY Violation of 20 (3) | Grder 2- Co'firmation of suspension Tene aes Tee BS days wom STAD (8 days late) re ee 32 Vietation of 20 (3), Now license is u idee suspension for last 8 een ved al Mmonrths in ths 3 year okt case in which Cl clays prow spl Ar invescigation is going on for last 2 years, ot CUR HOS Bi qe Th erentNo.9 /2010-C1 = ‘Subject: Issue of Custom House Agent License — Reference from field formations ~ regarding. (v) Time limit for ion of suspension proceed! CHA Ji 71, The present procedure prescribed for completion of reqular suspension proceedings takes 2 long time since it involves inquiry proceedings, and there is no time limit prescribed for completion of such proceedings. Hence, it has been decided by the Board to ascribe an overall time limit of NINE MONTHS from the date of receipt of offence report, by prescribing time limits at various stages of issue of Show Cause Notice, submission of inquiry report by the DC / AC recording his findings on the issue of suspension of CHA license, and for passing of an order by the Commissioner of Customs. Suitable changes have been made in the present time limit of forty five days for reply by CHA to the notice of suspension, sixty days time for representation against the report of AC/OC on the grounds not accepted by CHA, by reducing the time to thirty days in both the cases under the Regulations. 7.2, In cases where Co oms und there is no n prescribed under Regulation 22 since such an action is taken immediately and oniy in justified cases depending upon the seriousness or gravity of offence. Hawever, it has been decided by the Board that a ‘post-decisional hearing’ should be given in all such cases so that errors apparent, if any, can bbe corrected and an opportunity for personal hearing is given to the aggrieved party FE Bi as also prescribed certain time limits in cases warranting immedia nsion_under ation \ccordinaly, the investigatin shail furnish its report to the Commissioner of Customs who had issued the CHA license Licensing authority), within thi ‘of the detection of an affence. The Licensing authorily shall take necessary immediate suspension action within fifteen days of the receipt of the report of the investigating authority. A postdecisional hearing shall be granted to the party within fifteen days from the date of his suspension. The Commissioner of Customs concerned shall issue an Adjudication Order, where it is possible to do so, within fiftegn days from the date of personal hearing 60 granted by himCustoms House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. ‘As amended by Notification No. 30 / 2010 Customs (N.T.) dt 8 /april /2010 Plalso see Circular No 9/2010 Customs dt 8/4/10 20. Suspension or revocation of licence. — (1) The Commissioner of Customs may, subject to the provisions of regulation 22, revoke the licence of a Customs House Agent and order for forfeiture of part or whole of security, or only order forfeiture of part or whole of security, on any of the following grounds, namely — (a) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the conuitions of the bond executed by him under regulation 10; (b) _fallure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the provisions of these regulations, within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Customs or anywhere else; (©) any misconduct on his part, whether within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Customs or any where else which in the opinion of the Commissioner renders him unfit to transact any business in the Customs Station, 20 ~ 2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulation (1), the Commissioner of Customs may, in appropriate ‘cases where immediate action is necessary, within fifteen days fi late of receipt of a report fi investigating authority, suspend the licence of a Customs House Agent where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated. Q0~ (2) %B) Mhere a licence is suspended undr sub-regulation (2), notwithstanding the procedure specified Under regulation 22, the Commissioner of Customs may, withit in days from the dat Suspension, give_an opportunity of hearing to the Customs House Agent whose licence is suspended and may pass such order as he deems fit either revoking the si i i ino(C) case may be, within fifteen days trom the date of hearing granted to the Customs House Agent”, Note? Procen Ahoul d complity with In 45 clays from datr of thong 1 frauel . Sn this can shade bo |S fp, |Following are theseven grounds of appeal 1 Against the principle of natural justice. Appellant had been deprived of his living hood for almost one year (July 2012) & irreversible loss is already made to his business & reputation. Violation of 30 days time limit mentioned under rule 7.2 of regulation 22 of CHALR 2004 for immediate suspension of license under regulation 22(2). Violation of overall time limit of 45 days as mentioned under regulation 22(2) & 22(3) of CHALR 2004 for immediate ‘suspension. No RUDs provided. Please mention case laws. No cross examination provided. Please mention case laws. Department had approved customs clearance as per prevalent EOU circular at that time. . Department failed to appreciate that appellant had cleared more than 700 B/Es after the’ incidence since Dec 2009 & also helping department to reach real culprit.Ambika Enterprises did not obtained KYC/ Authority letter. In this case Non availability of the authority letter from the importer is collaterally proved by availability of evidence in the form of : © Bank attested authority letter issued by importer in the form of “Factory. .pe-stuffing. owner of empty container (Maersk Shipping Line- Nenclosed’ on-page no 49°53 of annexure ). © Authority letter“issued’ by importer to M/s — Logistics for collection of Delivery Order. Prior to April 2010 only authority letter is required, Authority letter of CHA is missing from the office of CHA mysteriously. WN. BF CHA is responsible to check the genuineness of documents © CHA works under bona fide belief that documents provided is genuine. Please quotecaselawsenciosed on : A9-5 © Power to check genuineness is vested with customs authority as evident from the JNPT. circular. Page no--. In this case documents were original and authenticated by the various government agencies and bank also (Copy enclosed at page 55-56),| accordingly proceed to submit my reply which may kindly be taken as an interim reply till the documents/ cross examination necessary for my defense are provided to me: L.That the above SCN has been issued clearly in violation of Board's circular no. 9/2010-cus dated 8/4/2010, which, interalia, provides datelines for actions to be taken by Commissioner in matters relating to CHA’s The Circular Is reproduced below (only the relevant extracts) Circular No. 9/2010-Cus., dated 8-4-2010 F. No. 502/5/2008-Cus V1. Pace 'Governmentiof India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject: Issue of Customs House Agent Licence — Reference from field formations - Regarding. 10. (9) Time limit for completion of suspension proceedings against CHA licensee under regulation 22 : 7.1 The present procedure prescribed for completion of regular suspension proceedings takes a long time since it involves inquiry proceedings, and there is no time limit prescribed for completion of such proceedings Hence, it has been decided by the Board to prescribe an IL e months from date of receipt of offence report, by prescribing time limits at various stages of issue of Show Cause Notice, submission of inquiry report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs recording his findings on the issue of suspension of CHA license, and for passing of an order by the Commissioner of Customs. Suitable changes have been made in the present time limit of forty five days for reply by CHA to the notice of suspension, sixty days time for representation against the report of AC/DC on the grounds not accepted by CHA, by reducing the time to thirty days in both the cases under the Regulations.7,2,In.cases where immediate suspension action against a CHA is required to be taken by a Commissioner of Customs under regulation 20(2), there is no need for following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 22 since such an action is taken immediately and only in justified cases depending upon the seriousness or gravity of offence. However, it has been decided by the Board that a ‘post-decisional hearing’ should be given in all such cases so that errors apparent, if any, can be corrected and an opportunity for personal hearing is given to the aggrieved party. Further, Board has also prescribed certain time limits in cases. warranting immediate suspension under Regulation 20(2). Accordingly,:theiinvestigatingiy ity: shall furnish its reporty-to the ane ‘who ued “the CHA license (Licensing authority);,(within thirty days of the detection of an offence. The Licensing authority shalltake necessary. immediate suspension action within fifteen days of the receipt of the report of the investigating authority. A post-decisional hearing shall be granted to the party within fifteen days from the date of his ; suspension. The Commissioner of Customs concerned shall issue an J Adjudication Order, where it is possible to do'so, within fifteen days'from the date of personal ing so granted by ‘hiti. ''” ‘ (wi) 9, The aforesaid decisions of the Board involving change in the CHALR, 2004, bet ree. on emented by issue of Notification No. 30/2010-Customs (N.T.), lated 8-4-2010. 10, These instructions may, be:brought tothe notice of the trade byvissuing suitable Trade/Public Notices, Suitable Standing orders/instructions may be issued for the guidance of the field officers. 11. Difficulties faced, if any, in implementation of this Circular, changes made in the CHALR, 2004 may be brought to the notice of the Board immediately. 1, That the H'blé Tribunal in 2011(268) E. L. T. 97 (Tri-Del)Sunil Bhatia, CHA Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi has held -Custom House Agent’s Licence ~ Suspension of - Shipping bills filed declaring the goods to be Basmati Rice but on testing of samples the goods found to be non-basmati rice which is prohibited for export- Investigating authority send a report only after three months of event- Suspension order issued after 52 days from the report in yiolation of norms prescribed by the C. B. E & C, Circular No. 9/2010, dated 08.04.2010- Considerable delay in issue of suspension order when adjudged against the time framesprescribed-by.the-Boarde.Stay.on-suspension-order has same. effect. as revocation of suspension- Suspension order revoked. From the above, it is clear that the datelines prescribed even in the Board's circular were considered as sacrosanct and could not be ignored while taking action as contemplated against us by the authorities lower than the C.B,E.C, Needless to say, that datelines in our case regarding revocation now have full statutory backing in the amended regulations. In this regard the following chart will exhibit that Department has gone beyond time limits at almost each stage, to my prejudice and has already far exceeded the overall limit of nine months prescribed, not only in relation to completion of proceedings, but so much so that even my suspension is effective already for more than one year. Way UN Dhd§ sai Time limits prescribed where suspension of CHA License is done as per para 7.2 of the Circular Overall time limit of 9 (nine) months from the date of receipt of offence report. |S |Aetions to be taken] Time Limit | In this case | Actual” No. dates of action 1. |Date of detection of| Firstday | 15.02.2010 | 15.02.2010 offence 2 | The investigating Requisite date | Not authority shall furnish provided its report. to.,..the | 16.03.2010 Commissioner of Customs who had 30 issued the CHA license (Licensing authority), within thirty days of the | /0. finn detection of an offence |_ 3 | Issue of Suspension of 15 Requisite date | 31.03.2010 CHA Licence I 31.03.2010 _|= = | 4\A post-decisional IS Requisite date | 4.5.2010 | hearing shall be granted to the party within 15.04.2010 fifteen days from the date of his suspension. 7 5 |Passing of an order by 15 Requisite date | 07.09.2010 the Commissioner of Customs 30.04.2010 As indicated,, the overall time limit prescribed in para 7.1 for completion of such proceedings is already over and issuance of this SCN at this belated stage is not only violative of administrative instructions as contained in the circular but is also not in consonance with the case law of the Tribunal as contained in 2011(268) E. L..T. 97.(Tri-Del) Sunil Bhatia, CHA Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.(cited supra) ‘As has been indicated in the above Board's Circular, the same was simultaneously given full legal force by issuing of Notification (Non-tariff) as below: NOTIFICATION NO 30/2010-Customs (N.T.), Dated : April 8, 2010 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Centra! Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes the following regulations, to amend the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, namely:- 1. (1) Thege regulations may be called the Customs House Agents Licensing (Amendment) Regulations, 2010, ¢!isi.icit (2) They shall come into force on the day of their publication in the Official Gazette, 2. In the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation), - (i) in regulation 8,(a) in sub-regulation (1) for the words “twice every year”, the words “once every year", shall be substituted; (b) after sub-regulation (8), the following shall be inserted, namely:~ *(9) Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, any person who had passed the examination conducted in regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 1984, and has not yet been granted license under these regulations, upon declaring successful in a written examination conducted on the following subjects, shall be deemed to have passed the examination referred to in regulation 8 for the purpose of these regulations. (a) The Patents Act)1970.and Indian Copyright Act, 1957; (b) Central Excise Act, 1944; (c) Export promotion schemes; (d) Procedure on appeal and revision petition; (e) Prevention of Corruption Act,.1988; (f) Online filing of electronic Customs declarations; (a) Narcoti¢ Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and (h) Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.”; (ii) in regulation 13, after sub-regulation (n), the following shall be inserted, namely:- 1970 ar anc npiyi ght AG (0) verify antecedent, correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) Number, identity of his lient and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information.”; (iil) in regulation 20, (a) in sub-fegulation (2), for the words “suspend the licence”, the words “within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a report from investigating authority, suspend the licence”, shall be substituted; (b) after sub-regulation (2), the following sub-regulation shail be inserted, namely:~ *(3) Where a licence is suspended under sub-regulation (2), notwithstanding the procedure specified under regulation 22, the Commissioner of Customs may, within fifteen days from the date of such suspension, give an opportunity of hearing to the Customs House Agent whose licence Is suspended and may pass such order as he deems fit elther revoking the suspension or continuing it, as the case may be, within fifteen days from the date of hearing granted to the Customs House Agent,"; (iv) in regulation 22,(2)‘in sub-fegulation (1) for the words “stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke'the licence-and requiring the-sai¢ Customs House Agent to submit, within such time as may be specified in the notice, not being less than forty-five days”, the words “within ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the licence and requiring the said Customs House Agent to submit within thirty days” shall be substituted; (b) after sub-regulation (1), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- “Provided that the procedure prescribed in. regulation 22. shall not-apply in respect. of the provisions contained Jn sub-regulation (2) to'regulation’20.” (c) In sub-regulation.(5),.fon:the;words “his findings,", the words “his findings and submit his report within ninety days from the date of issue of a notice under sub-regulation (1).” shall be substituted; (d) In subFeguletion (6), for.the words “slity Hays", the words “thirty days", shall be substituted; = <3 ue “come: (e) in sub-regulation (7), for for the words "as he deems ft" the words "as he deems fit within ninety days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs of Assistant Commissioner of Customs, , under sub-regulation (5). ", shall be substituted, No. 502/5/2008 ~ Cus.VI u (Vikas) 1 auad ieadberec Under Secretary to the Government of India That after the amendment vide above Notification, the Regulations 20 and 22 of the CHALR, 2004 now read as follows:- 20. Suspension or revocation of licence. - (1) The Commissioner of Customs may, subject to the provisions of regulation 22, revoke the licence of a Customs House Agent and order for forfeiture of part or whole of security, or only order forfeiture of part or whole of security, on any of the following grounds, namely-ir). + (2) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the conditions of the bond executed by him under regulation 10; (b) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the provisions of these regulations, within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Customs or anywhere else; (c) any migconduct on his part, whether within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Customs or any where else which in the opinion of the Commissioner renders him-unfit to transact any business in the Customs Station/ie! Secistary te vent of (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulation (1), the Commissioner of Customs may, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a report from’ investigating authority, suspend the licence of a Customs House Agent where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated. the follow mely(3) Where @ licence is suspended under sub-regulation (2), notwithstanding the procedure specified under regulation 22, the Commissioner of Customs may, within fifteen days from the date of such suspension, give an opportunity of hearing to the Customs House Agent whose licence is suspended and may pass such order as he deems fit either revoking the ‘suspension or continuing it, as the case may be, within fifteen days from the date of hearing Granted to the Customs House Agent. 22. Procedure for suspending or revoking licence under Regulation 20. - (1) The Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs House Agent within ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed ta suspend or revoke the licence and requiring the said Customs House Agent to submit within thirty days, to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs House Agent desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Provided that the procedure prescribed in regulation 22 shall not apply in respect of the provisions contained in sub-regulation (2) to regulation 20. (2) The Commissioner of Customs may, on receipt of the written statement from the Customs House Agent, or where no such statement has been received within the time-limit specified in the notice referredito in sub-regulation (1), direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant:Commissioner of Customs to inquire into the grounds which are not admitted by the Customs House Agent. (3) The Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs shall, in the course of inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material to the inquiry in regard to the grounds forming the basis of the Proceedings, and he may also put any question to any person tendering evidence for or against the Customs House Agent, for the purpose of ascertaining the correct position. (4) The Customs House Agent shall be entitled to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis -of.the proceedings, and where the Deputy Commissioner of Customs'or Assistant-Commissioner of ‘Customs declines to examine any person on the grounds that his evidence Is not relevant or material, he shall record his reasons in writing for so doing. (5) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs shall prepare a report of the inquiry recording his findings and submit his feport within ninety days from the date of issue of @ notice under sub-regulation (). (6) The Commissioner of Customs shall furnish to the Customs House Agent a copy of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, and shall require the Customs House Agent to submit, within the specified period not being less than thirty days, any representation that he may wish to make against the findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. (7) The Commissioner of Customs shall, after considering the report of the inquiry and the representation thereon, if any, made by the Customs House Agent, pass such orders as he deems fit within ninety days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, under sub-regulation (5).(8) Any Customs House Agent aggrieved by any decision or order passed under regulation 20 or sub-regulation (7) of regulation 22, may prefer an appeal under section 129A of the Act to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of section 129 of the Act. Therefore, the datelines prescribed by the Board now have full force of law and cannot be chosen to be ignored by the officers and any SCN issued contrary to the above shall be illegal and unsustainable. ‘With this being the legal position, 1 request you to kindly immediately withdraw your above SCN, which) has been issued to me well beyond 90 days from the receipt of investigation report( In fact more than one year). The fact that my suspension notice was Issued on 31/3/2010 ¢learly indicates that your office had received investigation report which formed the basis of my suspension before that date of 31/3/2010. Further, the marking of an enquiry to the Deputy Commissioner by your goodself even without considering my this written statement indicates a bias and prejudice as it is clearly in violation of Regulation 22(2), since the marking of an enquiry by the Commissioner cannot preceed consideration of written statement from the C,H.A. Sir, you will agree that. sufficient hardship has been caused to me through a prolonged suspension which in any case was also badly delayed and was contrary to Board's circular and provisions of Reg:20, indicated in the chart and text of Reg:20 above. I, therefore, urge you.to drop these proceedings and recommend restoration of my license. However, in case it is still decided to proceed with the enquiry disregarding the illegality that will be involved, disregarding administrative instructions and judicial decision which has held such time frame as sacrosanct and despite my profession suffering a lot due to delay and disregard by the authorities of C.B.E.C’s instructions, then I shall request you to kindly allow. me, personal hearing and also to provide me following documents urgently referred/ relied upon or as the same are necessary for my defense: 1. Any document/pleading-ete, by the Departmental officers indicating that there was no dealings found between me and Sh, Bimal Sahi after Sept, 2009. 2. Any retraction made by Sh. Bimal Sahi at any stage of the investigation. 3. Reply submitted by Sh. Bimal Sahi‘to Departmental authorities, if any for the SCN issued under Customs Act, 1962 ° ily ret f upon pe " ry f4. Talso request for cross examination of investigating officers involved in the matter to indicate that that their whole basis of this SCN and line of thinking that in RMS containers are not examined is nothing but misconception and their investigative theory and surmises are totally in-correct. As on one side they believe that R.M.S is ano check system for non-sensitive goods and on the other side they believe in their theory that Sk. Bimal Sahi had to pay Rs.8 Lakhs per container even when just mentioning a wrong description could have served the purpose. This is more so as the investigations has not revealed the I had influence over certain custom or system officers which was necessary for such pre-planned operation involving more than 40 containers. 5. Further, it may be stated as to whether M/s Kumar International which has been termed as a bogus firm vide Para 4, Sr. No. 6 of the impugned SCN was allowed by the ICD: TKD to continue to clear goods even after the detection of this case, if so the circumstances thereof and‘action if any taken against the erring officials. 6. Statement if any recorded’ of Sh. Sanjay i.e. the person as referred in Para 4 of the SCN as the provider of bogus IEC codes. 7. Investigations of any of M/s Sam International and its proprietress Ms. Payal Sahi referred to in Para4 of the SCN. If no’ investigations done then reasons thereof. a 8. Whether any other C:H.A other than the ones mentioned in Para 4 of the SCN were used by Sh. Bimal Sahi for clearance of his cargo during the period under investigations. This is necessary to show that investigations has covered up more than it has revealed and that Sh, Bimal Sahi has not named all persons deliberately as they may be'of future use to-him? 9. Whether the firms termed bogus by the Department were actually registered with the DGFT in its website, if so the procedure and checks carried out by the DGFT authorities to ensure that a non- existent person does not take the IEC code? 10. What actions of any has been taken or is contemplated against other C,H,As of C.H.A firms who are stated to be used for bogus firms as per Para 9 of the SCN, where in| statement of Sh. Bimal Sahi has been reproduced. Also provide statements of such C.H.A.s11. Whether there actually exists a firm named as M/s N.S. International as mentioned in Para 7(vii) of the SCN as the same does not appear to be finding mention in the statement of mine.? 12. Whether it is revealed by the investigations that IEC License of M/s Krishna Enterprises was in use earlier also.and goods were cleared by other C.H.As also in the past, if so action taken/contemplated against such C.H.A for bogus firm as alleged? Whether the bank accounts of M/s Krishna Enterprises have revealed to the investigating officers that certain personal payments like LIC, payment of car etc. were made by Sh. Bimal Sahi and his relatives from this account. This is y necessary to show that the Firm was not provided by the undersigned and had a prio existe aE eal 13. Was any investigation done from connivance angle by any independent team as to how 4 containers got cleared despite watch by SIIB team as stated in Para 7 of the SCN and why only 5" container of before clearance was intercepted by the team?tg Further, it cannot be the department's case that the Board Circular especially which is beneficial to the party is not binding on the departmental authorities. To emphasize our point, we seek reliance on the following case law: -2007 (209) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) UNION OF INDIA Versus ARVIVA INDUSTRIES (LTD. Departmental clarifications - Circulars issued by CBEC - Binding nature of - Circular issued by CBEC binding on Department - Department cannot be permitted to urge that such circulars are not binding on it - Held by Supreme Court in several cases that circulars issued under Section 119 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 37B of Central Excise Act, 1944 are binding on the Revenue - Section 37B of Central Excise Act, 1944, - 2002 (139), B.L.T,.3 ($.C.) COLLECTOR OF (. EX., VADODARA Versus DHIREN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES-Departmental clarification - C.B.E. & C. Circulars binding on Revenue even if placing different interpretation then Supreme Court - Regardless of the interpretation that the Court have placed on the phrase “on which the appropriate amount of duty has already been paid”, if there, are circulars which, haye 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 - Section 37B of Central Excise Act, 1944. [para 9] - 2004 (165) E.L.T, 257 (S.C.) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA. Versus, INDIAN OIL.CORPORATION LTD.-Departmental clarifications - Promissory estoppel - Applicability of - Circulars issued by CBEC under Section 37B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and CBDT under Income Tax Act, 1961 held to be binding primarily on basis of language of statutory provisions buttressed by need of adjudicating officers to maintain uniformity in levy of tax/duty throughout country and not on the basis of promissory estoppel. [para 16]