Trade notice under Central Excise Rules lacks statutory force, so non-compliance with its terms cannot override substantive entitlement.

A trade notice issued under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not have the force of statutory rules, because rule-making power under the Central Excise Act, 1944 vests in the Central Government and not in subordinate authorities issuing instructions. Accordingly, a stipulation contained only in such a trade notice cannot be treated as a statutory requirement or delegated legislation. Non-compliance with that stipulation is therefore not automatically a substantive breach and cannot override an underlying entitlement merely because of procedural default.

---

---

Issues: Whether a trade notice issued under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could have the force of statutory rules and whether non-compliance with its stipulations could be treated as a mere procedural lapse.

Analysis: Rule 233 authorises written instructions on supplemental matters arising out of the rules, but the power to make rules under the Central Excise Act, 1944 vests in the Central Government. Instructions issued by subordinate authorities under Rule 233 do not amount to rules framed under the Act and cannot acquire the status of delegated legislation. In that setting, a stipulation contained only in a trade notice cannot be equated with a statutory requirement, and breach of such a stipulation cannot override a substantive entitlement merely because of a procedural default.

Conclusion: The trade notice did not have statutory force, and non-observance of its stipulations could not be treated as a breach giving rise to a question of law.

---