The main legal point established in the judgment is that substantial compliance with the notification is sufficient to claim the rebate, and beneficial construction and interpretation should be given to the notification. The Court emphasized that registration is compulsory, but need not precede export for the year 1981.

Jagannadha Raju, J.

1. At the instance of the revenue, a single reference is made relating to a batch of 21 reference applications. The question of law involved is the same in all the cases. The question referred by the Tribunal is as follows:

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is in law to hold that for the purpose of determining the eligibility for rebate of duty on tea exported in terms of Notification No.166/81 dated 23-9-1981, filing an application for registration under Clause.1 of Appendix to the aforesaid Notification was not a mandatory requirement to be done prior to the export of tea."

2. Obviously the question has not been framed in a straight forward simple manner in which it is easy to understand. There appears to be some typographical errors as well as some grammatical errors. If we recast the question in simple English, it would read as follows:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, to determine the question of eligibility for rebate of duty on blended tea exported in terms of Notification No.166/81 dated 23-9-1981, it is mandatory that the registration should precede the export or whether it is sufficient if there is registration and substantial compliance with the provisions of the Notification."

3. The respondents in these references are exporters of tea, while the petitioner in these reference applications is the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin (the revenue). The Government of India issued Notification No.166/81 dated 23-9-1981 in exercise of its powers under R.12A of the Central Excise Rules and provided for grant of rebate of duties. The Notification dealt with tea used in blended tea which is exported out of India. The assessees, the respondents, exported blended tea, filed applications for registration after tea was exported, and claimed rebate in terms of the Notification No. 166/81. The Maritime Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, rejected the claims on the ground that the conditions of Notification No.166/81 were not satisfied in as much as the goods in respect of which claims had been made were exported prior to the filing of their respective applications for registration. In appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the orders of the Maritime Collector of Central Excise.

4. Then the exporters filed appeals before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal allowed the appeals. The Tribunal in its order, which is Annexure D of the paper book, came to the conclusion that when the registration is done for the first time, it can be done at any time during the year 1981 and it need not necessarily be prior to the undertaking of export. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the notification is only regulatory in character and not mandatory and hence substantial compliance with the notification is sufficient to claim the rebate granted under the notification. It also came to the conclusion that beneficial construction and interpretation should be given to the notification and if there is any ambiguity, benefit should be given to the assessees. The notification should be interpreted bearing-in-mind the primary objective of the notification, which is to assist and encourage the exporters in selling blended tea at competitive prices in the world market. The Tribunal rejected the contentions advanced on behalf of the revenue. It also distinguished the decision reported in Shri. Rammohan Motor Service v. C.I.T., Hyderabad, AIR 1973 S.C.1445 and preferred to follow the decision reported in Sharif-ud-din v. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 S.C. 303, and came to the conclusion that the provision regarding registration in this notification is only regulatory in character and it cannot be termed as mandatory. In that view, the Tribunal allowed the appeals.

5. In these references at the instance of the revenue, Shri. P. Santhalingam, Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel, urged on behalf of the revenue that R.12 and 12A deal with different types of goods and