Dalip K. Kapur, J.
1. The subject matter of the present writ petition is practically the same as was the subject matter of Civil Writ Petition No. 411 of 1977 decided on 8.2.1978 by a Division Bench of this Court and reported as M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. The Board of Central Excise & Customs 1978 E.L.T. (J 127)1978 E.L.T. (J 127) I.L.R. (1978) II Delhi 352.
2. In the aforesaid cited case the notification No. 198/76 dated 16th June, 1976 was interpreted by the Court to hold that the 25 per cent exemption from payment of excise duty on tyres and tubes which had been granted subject to certain conditions could not be altered by a Press note and trade notices dated 19.2.1976 and 9.3.1977 whereby the exemption had been made subject to the conditions that the benefit is passed on to the consumer.
3. A similar matter was dealt with in the case of Strawberry Products and another v. Union of India and another decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.3.1980 (C.W. 741 of 1979) and in another case of the Goa factory of the petitioners herein, namely, M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India and others : decided by Chadha J. on November 2, 1978 (C.W. 501) of 1978) 1979 E.L.T. (J. 173).
4. The present case is concerned with a notification No. 142 of 1978 dated 14.7.1978 which is similar grant of exemption to the one granted by the previous notification No. 198/76 dated 16.6.1976 which was the subject matter of the petitioners was have referred to above.
5. It having been decided in the above mentioned cases that the exemption granted by notification cannot be altered by putting additional conditions by press notes or trade notices, the present writ petition is fully covered by the aforesaid decisions.
6. The fact of the present cases how that a price list or classification list as it has been described before us was prepared and approved on 28.12.78 with effect from 14.7.78. This classification list was based on the application of the exemption notification in the manner claimed by the petitioner. Subsequently on 4.1.1979, the Superintendent of Central Excise Kottayam, informed the petitioner that the approval already granted had to be modified in view of the trade notice No. 54 of 1977 dated 9.3.1977 read with trade notice No. 261 of 1977 dated 28.10.1977. These trade notices are the very ones which insisted that exemption should be passed on to the consumer before they could be availed of by the manufacturer.
7. For reasons given in the Judgments referred to above, we have to hold that the impugned order is not valid and has to be struck down. We accordingly grant the writ quashing the order dated 4.1.1979 which directed the petitioner to prepare a fresh price list or classification list on the basis of the said trade notices.
8. It would, thereforee, follow that the approved classification list effective from 14.7.1978 which was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kottayam, would continue to be effective.
9. In the circumstances of the case, however, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.