ORDER
S. Kalyanam, Member
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 23.12.88 confirming the order of the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Lalbagh Dn., Bangalore dated 22.2.88 disallowing the deemed credit taken by the appellant on articles of steel for the period 2.11.87 to 24.11.87.
2. Shri. G. Sampath, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Government of India issued a statutory order under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on 2.11.87 withdrawing deemed credit in respect of articles of steel. The learned counsel made it clear that the issue here for consideration is whether the deemed credit taken by the appellant for the period 2.11.87 to 24.11.87 is in order or not. It was contended that the Statutory order or notification was neither published in the Gazette of the Government of India nor circulated to the public and the withdrawal of deemed credit by Government of India was communicated for the first time to the public only by means of a trade notice and in present case on 24.11.87 under trade notice No. 217/87 of Bangalore Collectorate. The learned counsel urged that the notification or statutory order would take effect only from the date of publication and communication of the same to the public and relied upon the ratio of the ruling of the Madras High Court in the case of Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1984 (28) ELT 152 and the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of G.T.C Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, .
3. Heard Shri P.B. Vedantham, learned D.R.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The appeal came up earlier on a number of occasions and the Tribunal adjourned the matter at the request of the learned D.R. with a view to enable the D.R. to get instructions as to whether the withdrawal of deemed credit was cither published in the Gazette of the Government of India and circulated to the public or as to when it was made known to public. The learned D.R. to-day submitted before us that no notification was issued nor any publication made in the Gazette and the withdrawal of deemed credit in respect of the goods in question was communicated only by trade notice No. 217/87 dated 24.11.87. We note that the withdrawal of deemed credit is by virtue of an order under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and as such assumed the status of a statutory order. It is well established that any notification which is statutory in nature or a statutory order under law should be published in the Gazette of Government of India and the same must also be put into circulation. This position has been emphasised and highlighted in the rulings of the Madras and Bombay High Courts cited supra which we respectfully follow. The same view has also been adopted in a subsequent ruling by the Calcutta High Court. In the present case the learned D.R. reports that the public came to know about the withdrawal of the deemed credit only by the trade notice which was published on 24.11.87. Therefore, we hold that the deemed credit taken between 2.11.87 and 24.11.87 cannot be held to be irregular or unlawful. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Pronounced in the open Court)