ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T)
1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh No. 8/90 dated 11-7-1990.
2. The learned counsel stated that in this case they were availing the facility under Rules 57J and K with reference to Notification No. 27/87 dated 1-3-1987.
3. Subsequently this notification was rescinded and similar Notification No. 45/89(MT) dated 11-10-1989 was issued and the appellants found that they remained entitled to the benefit of the credit, hence continued to avail of the facility in terms of Rules 57K and J read with 57O.
4. The earlier notification was rescinded on 25-8-1989 and the new notification came into force from 11-10-1989. A question had arisen as to whether a fresh declaration was required to be filed under 57O once the new notification had been issued.
5. The appellants had taken up the matter with the Collectorate and the Col-lectorate advised them that the declaration already filed was valid under the new circumstances. Hence, they continued to avail all the benefits which was due to them on merits.
6. In spite of this position the impugned order was issued and the Collector adjudicated the case. It was their submission that admittedly they availed of the credit under a bona fide belief that no fresh declaration was called for. This belief was further strengthened by the act of the Collectorate itself which issued clarification. As such the Collector should not have passed the impugned order to reverse the credit and should have allowed them the benefit of the letter of the Asstt. Collector (Technical) dated 15-1-1990.
7. Subsequently, withdrawal of this clarification is not understandable. Hence, the prayer.
8. The learned SDR opposed the prayer stating that once the earlier notification was rescinded that matter was over. Since, the new notification has been issued a fresh declaration was called for in terms of 57O. This declaration had not been admittedly filed, therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit for the period in question. Hence, the prayer may be rejected.
9. The learned SDR further stated that initially the Supdt. had pointed out to them that they would not be entitled for the benefit under the new notification unless they filed a fresh declaration. Further, the appellants could have checked up the matter with the higher authorities. They accepted that Assistant Collector had issued the clarification referred to by the learned Counsel.
10. It was however, their contention that the Assistant Collector’s clarification cannot over-ride the law.
11. In this connection he would draw attention to the discussions in the operative portion of the order of the Collector, he requests that their prayer may be rejected.
12. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We are of the view that prima facie the appellants have succeeded in showing to us that they were under a bona fide belief and the clarification issued by the Assistant Collector strengthened this belief.
13. The legal value which should be attached to such a communication and implication thereof could be more appropriately taken up at the time of hearing of the main appeal. At this stage, it is sufficient to observe that looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances and noting the above points in particular, the prayer of the applicants was justified. Hence, we stay the operation of the Order during the pendency of the appeal.