1997 (12) TMI 375 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of a trade notice issued under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and its legal implications.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Shri G.R. Sharma, J. at the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involved the interpretation of a trade notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant, represented by Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, argued that the trade notice set out a specific procedure for ingot manufacturers, requiring the submission of D-3 intimation on receiving and melting scrap in the presence of the jurisdictional Superintendent. The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Limited v. Thane Municipal Corporation, emphasizing that non-observance of procedural conditions should not be condoned if it could lead to fraud or administrative inconveniences. The appellant contended that since the trade notice was issued under Rule 233, it should be considered part of the statute, and therefore, the appeals should be allowed based on the Supreme Court's ruling.

In response, the respondents did not appear during the proceedings but cited a previous decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. M/s. Didar Steel Complex (P) Limited. In that case, the Tribunal had held that the failure to send intimation to the Superintendent of Central Excise before melting defective steel ingots did not amount to a breach of rule or procedure, and the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in favor of the assessees was upheld.

After considering the arguments and case laws presented by both sides, Shri G.R. Sharma, J. analyzed the legal implications of the trade notice issued under Rule 233. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Indian Aluminium Company Limited, the judge noted that the case involved a notification exempting goods, which required strict interpretation as exemptions are exceptions rather than the rule. The judge distinguished the present case, emphasizing that the trade notice, although issued under Rule 233, should be interpreted based on its procedural requirements. The judge found that the melting of scrap was a procedural observance of the trade notice's requirements and not akin to an exemption notification. Therefore, the judge held that the ruling of the Apex Court was not applicable to the facts of the case.

Ultimately, Shri G.R. Sharma, J. relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE v. M/s Didar Steel Complex (P) Ltd., which favored the respondents. The judge concluded that the requirement of the trade notice was procedural, and substantive benefits could not be denied for procedural lapses, as held in previous Tribunal cases. Consequently, the judge found no legal infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the decision, rejecting the appeals brought before the Tribunal.