· MIS . SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS LTD. II. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE v. C. C. E & Ors.

Learned counsel for the appellant in each case submit- c ted that the Circular was issued on the basis of representations made by various as~essees and therefore the Notification can- not stand on the way of relief being granted . I 'i= .{ )-- t'

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand 0 submit~ed that the Notificatioh which is statutorily issued has overriding effect because the Notifications are i~sued in exer- cise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). ~ t:: E

The issue relating to effectiveness of a Circular con- trary to a Notification statutorily issued has been .examined by this Court in several cases. A Circular cannot take away the effect of Notifications statutorily issued. In fact ·in certain cases it has been held that the Circular cannot whittle down the Ex- emption Notification and restrict the scope of the Exemption F Notification or hit it down. In other words it was held that by issu- ing a circular a new condition thereby restricting the scope of the exemption or restricting or whittling it down cannot be im- · posed. The principle is applicable to the instant cases also, though the controversy. is of different nature. J._ G

The appeals fail and are dismissed. B.B.B. Appeals dismissed. ;....