Statutory notification prevails over supplementary instructions; technical non-filing of Annexure 19 could not invalidate the letter of undertaking.

Supplementary instructions issued under delegated administrative power cannot override or restrict a statutory notification, and a circular cannot impose a new condition or narrow the benefit granted by that notification. The Tribunal treated Annexure 19 as a technical filing requirement, not a substantive condition, so non-filing did not justify invalidating the letter of undertaking or denying the notification benefit. On that basis, the impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the supplementary instructions requiring filing of Annexure 19 could override the notification and justify treating the letter of undertaking as invalid for non-filing of the statement.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the notification issued under the rule-making framework could not be curtailed by supplementary instructions issued under Rule 31. It relied on the principle that a circular or instruction cannot impose a new condition or whittle down the scope of a statutorily issued notification. The Tribunal also noted that the information sought in Annexure 19 was only a technical requirement, and the absence of the statement did not justify invalidation of the letter of undertaking.

Conclusion: The requirement to file Annexure 19 was not treated as a substantive condition, and the letter of undertaking could not be declared invalid on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and all appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Supplementary instructions issued under delegated administrative power cannot override or restrict the scope of a statutory notification, and non-compliance with a merely technical procedural requirement does not justify denial of the substantive benefit granted by the notification.

---