ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T).
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue.
2. M/s Maruthi Embroideries, Bangalore are manufacturers of excisable goods namely embroidery in pieces, in strips or motifs falling under chapter sub-heading 5805.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee was issued with a Show Cause Notice on the ground that the assessee has contravened the provisions of Rule 96ZI(5)(d) and Rule 96ZL by incorrectly furnishing the information required under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZI of Central Excise Rules, 1944, wherein the assessee has declared the meter length of the machines installed as 13.9 mts, In reality, the machine has got two rollers of 13.9 mtrs. of each with 514 needles on each roller. The Show Cause Notice demanded differential duty of Rs. 91,115/- for the clearances made during
the period Oct., 97 to Jan., 98 under Rule 96ZL(I) and also proposed to impose penalty under Rule 96ZL(iii) and Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner “D” Division, Bangalore in his Order-in-Original No. 182/98, dated 30-11-98 dropped the proceedings initiated in the show cause notice.
3. The Department aggrieved by this order-in-original filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that “meter length” in relation to a machine has been defined under Rule 96ZI(6) means the distance between points provided for the 1st and last needles of the roller of such machines. The Assistant Commissioner’s reliance on the Notification No. 15/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-98 wherein a definition of mere length is amended under Rule 96ZI(6) which was issued and came into effect only from 2-6-98 is not applicable as relied by the Assistant Commissioner since the demand in this case was much before i.e. from October, 97 to January, 98. The Baroda Collectorate Trade Notice No 289/69, dated 18-9-69, in favour of the Assistant Commissioner’s view was not applicable since the definition under Rule 96ZI(6) at the relevant time would take preference over the clarification of Trade Notice issued by different Collectorate.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, dismissed the appeal filed by the Department and aggrieved by this Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the present appeal has been filed on the ground :-
(i) Notification No 15/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-98 is clarificatory in nature as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect and the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have allowed retrospective benefit under this Notification which came into effective on 2-6-98 for the relevant period of dispute in this case from 10/97 to 1/98 since the amendment would take place from 2-6-98.
(ii) The Trade Notice No 289/69, dated 16-9-69 of the Baroda Commissionerate relied by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not acceptable to the Department since there is a definition under the Rule 96ZI(6). They relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 375) (S.C.)] and in a similar facts of the case, the Department has filed a Civil Appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Gemini Dyeing and Printing Mills Ltd, Bangalore on the ground that the CEGAT had given retrospective effect to the Notification No. 14/2000, dated 1-3-2000.
5. We have considered the submissions made and the material on record and find :-
(a) The amendment made by Notification No. 15/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-98 of the definition of “meter length” under Rule 96ZI (6) is consequent to the Budget Proposals of 1998-99 and then proposal reads as follows :-
“58.2 The definition of ‘meter length’ under Rule 96ZI has been amended to clarify that ‘meter length’ in relation to an embroidery machine means the distance between the points provided for the
first and last needles of only one roller of such machine. Even if an embroidery machine has two rollers, which normally is the case, ‘meter length’ is taken to be the ‘length’ of one roller only and not two times such ‘length’ (refer S. No. 7 of Notification No. 15/98-C.E. (N.T.) refers).”
This clarificatory amendment Notification No. 15/98-CE. (N.T.) in view of the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Central Manufacturing Technology Institute. [2002 (142) E.L.T. 336 (Kar.)] would be retrospective in application. The Baroda Collectorate’s Trade Notice No 289/69, dated 18-9-69 and the definition for the length of embroidery machine as prescribed by the amendment on reading it show that Trade Notice has been given statutory approval by this clarificatory amendment to Rule 96ZI(6) can be given retrospectively.
(b) The Baroda Collectorate’s Trade Notice as most of such notices are issued consequent to advise and clarifications received from the Central Board of Excise & Customs on implementation interpretation of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the Rules thereunder. Therefore Baroda Collectorate’s Trade Notice would be binding and applicable in this case in view of the fact that no contrary instruction has been issued by the Bangalore Collectorate. It is now well settled position that Revenue cannot be allowed to and argue against the instructions issued by Central Board of Excise & Customs and its own Trade Notices.
6. In view of this matter, we find no merits in the present appeal. In the result the appeal is dismissed.