DGTD registration exclusion under excise exemption applies only to statutory registration, not mere listing or statistical entry.

The exemption exclusion in Notification No. 175/86-C.E., as amended, applied only to units that were legally registered under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act with DGTD, not to units merely appearing on a DGTD list or obtaining statistical registration. The majority reasoned that the Act distinguishes statutory registration from licensing and from DGTD registration used for administrative or statistical purposes. A carry on business licence was treated as a licence under the Act, not DGTD registration. On that construction, the assessee remained entitled to the exemption benefit, and the Revenue's challenge to the proceedings failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's factory was a unit registered under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act with DGTD so as to be excluded from the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 244/87-C.E.; (ii) whether the Revenue's challenge to the proceedings was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's factory was a unit registered under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act with DGTD so as to be excluded from the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 244/87-C.E.

Analysis: The decisive question was the scope of the expression "registered under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act with DGTD" in the amended exemption notification. The majority held that the scheme of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 distinguished between registration of industrial undertakings under the Act, licensing of new undertakings, and DGTD registration meant for statistical purposes under the exemption-linked administrative regime. The press note relied upon clarified that DGTD registration did not amount to registration under Section 10 of the Act and did not carry the attributes of statutory registration under the Act itself. The carry on business licence obtained by the assessee was treated as a licence under the Act and not as DGTD registration. On that construction, the mere fact that the assessee's unit was on the DGTD list or received assistance did not establish the kind of registration contemplated by the notification.

Conclusion: The assessee was not hit by the exclusion in the amended notification and was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue's challenge to the proceedings was sustainable.

Analysis: The Revenue's appeal was tested against the settled Tribunal view on the competence of the notice and the manner in which such objections had to be addressed. Following the earlier binding approach, the Revenue failed to establish any basis for interference with the order under appeal.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The majority view prevailed, resulting in grant of the exemption benefit to the assessee and rejection of the Revenue's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification excludes units registered with DGTD under the statutory regime, the exclusion applies only to the legally cognisable registration contemplated by the scheme of the Act and not to a mere statistical registration or listing with DGTD.

---