Judgment:
1. When the matter was called, none appeared for the respondents.
However, Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, learned JDR is present for the appellant. Since the issue in these appeals is short one and is also covered by the decisions of this Tribunal, it was decided to decide the issue on merits instead of dismissing the appeals for non-appearance.
2. Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, learned JDR submits that the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh had issued a Trade Notice No. 20/93-C.E., dated 29-10-1993. He submits that this Trade Notice set out a procedure to be followed by ingot manufacturers. He submits that this Trade Notice required submission of D-3 intimation on receipt of melting scrap and melting the same in the presence of jurisdictional Superintendent. He submits that the trade notices are issued under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and, therefore, they are part of the statute. The ld. JDR submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Limited v. Thane Municipal Corporation 1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (S.C.) held that non-observance of even a procedural condition not to be condoned if likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences. He submits that since the trade notice is part of rules as it is issued under Rule 233, therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court squarely covers this case and prays that the appeals may be allowed.
3. None appeared for the respondents. However, in their written submissions, they have referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Didar Steel Complex (P) Limited 1996 (87) E.L.T. 702. In this case, the Tribunal on identical facts held that the admitted position is that defective steel ingots were melted by the respondents for the manufacture of steel ingots but did not send intimation to the Superintendent of Central Excise before melting defective steel ingots; that the question for determination is whether this amounted breach of rule or breach of procedure and then held that there was no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in favour of the assessees.
4. I have heard the submissions of the ld. JDR. I have also perused the case law cited and relied upon by both sides. In the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Limited, I note that the question was about non-observance of certain condition in a notification exempting the goods. In that case, it was not just procedure set out for pursuing a particular purpose. It is well settled in law that an exemption notification is an exception rather than rule.
The exemption is to be read and construed strictly. In the instant case before me it is the trade notice. No doubt the trade notice has been issued under Rule 233. However its interpretation has to be seen in the light of its requirement. It is admitted position in the instant case that melting scrap was melted. There is no dispute about its being brought or melted and thus it is only procedural observance of uniform requirement of trade notice, it can neither be equated or called for a requirement of any exemption notification. Looking to these aspects, I hold that ruling of the Apex Court is clearly distinguishable and was not applicable to the facts of the instant case. On the contrary, I find that there is a decision of this Tribunal in the case CCE v. Didar Steel Complex (P) Ltd. cited and relied upon by the respondents. I find that the decision of this Tribunal is in favour of the respondents. I have no hesitation in following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Didar Steel Complex (P) Ltd. Following the ratio of the decision, I hold that the requirement of the trade notice is procedural one and for procedural lapse substantive benefit cannot be denied as held by the Tribunal in a number of cases. In these circumstances, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order and uphold the same. In the result, these 3 appeals are rejected.