Judgment :- Jagannadha Raju, J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, a single reference is made relating to a batch of 21 reference applications. The question of law involved is the same in all the cases. The question referred by the Tribunal is as follows: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is in law to hold that for the purpose of determining the eligibility for rebate of duty on tea exported in terms of Notification No.166/81 dated 23-9-1981, filing an application for registration under Clause.1 of Appendix to the aforesaid Notification was not a mandatory requirement to be done prior to the export of tea." 2. Obviously the question has not been framed in a straight forward simple manner in which it is easy to understand. There appears to be some typographical errors as well as some grammatical errors. If we recast the question in simple English, it would read as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, to determine the question of eligibility for rebate of duty on blended tea exported in terms of Notification No.166/81 dated 23-9-1981, it is mandatory that the registration should precede the export or whether it is sufficient if there is registration and substantial compliance with the provisions of the Notification." 3. The respondents in these references are exporters of tea, while the petitioner in these reference applications is the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin (the revenue). The Government of India issued Notification No.166/81 dated 23-9-1981 in exercise of its powers under R.12A of the Central Excise Rules and provided for grant of rebate of duties. The Notification dealt with tea used in blended tea which is exported out of India. The assessees, the respondents, exported blended tea, filed applications for registration after tea was exported, and claimed rebate in terms of the Notification No. 166/81. The Maritime Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, rejected the claims on the ground that the conditions of Notification No.166/81 were not satisfied in as much as the goods in respect of which claims had been made were exported prior to the filing of their respective applications for registration. In appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the orders of the Maritime Collector of Central Excise. 4. Then the exporters filed appeals before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal allowed the appeals. In appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the orders of the Maritime Collector of Central Excise. 4. Then the exporters filed appeals before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal allowed the appeals. The Tribunal in its order, which is Annexure D of the paper book, came to the conclusion that when the registration is done for the first time, it can be done at any time during the year 1981 and it need not necessarily be prior to the undertaking of export. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the notification is only regulatory in character and not mandatory and hence substantial compliance with the notification is sufficient to claim the rebate granted under the notification. It also came to the conclusion that beneficial construction and interpretation should be given to the notification and if there is any ambiguity, benefit should be given to the assessees. The notification should be interpreted bearing-in-mind the primary objective of the notification, which is to assist and encourage the exporters in selling blended tea at competitive prices in the world market. The Tribunal rejected the contentions advanced on behalf of the revenue. It also distinguished the decision reported in Shri. Rammohan Motor Service v. C.I.T., Hyderabad, AIR 1973 S.C.1445 and preferred to follow the decision reported in Sharif-ud-din v. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 S.C. 303, and came to the conclusion that the provision regarding registration in this notification is only regulatory in character and it cannot be termed as mandatory. In that view, the Tribunal allowed the appeals. 5. In these references at the instance of the revenue, Shri. P. Santhalingam, Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel, urged on behalf of the revenue that R.12 and 12A deal with different types of goods and hence notifications issued under these rules should be interpreted individually and provisions and spirit of R.12 cannot be imported while interpreting a notification issued under R.12A He also contends that in view of the specific language of the notification, especially the appendix, the registration should precede the export, and to claim the benefit under the notification, registration is a condition precedent and the export of blended tea should be subsequent to the registration so that the Central Excise authorities would be in a position to check the commodity and scrutinise the claims. 6. 6. On behalf of the exporters-assessees, Shri. Joseph Vellappally contends that the interpretation given by the Tribunal is perfectly correct and when there is substantial compliance with the notification the benefit has necessarily to be given. He contends that the notification will have to be interpreted taking into consideration the purpose and objects of the notification issued by the Government. The notification has to be interpreted along with the connected rules and similar notifications under the same Act or similar Acts. The interpretation should be one which would best subserve the purpose and objects of the notification. If, there is any violation of the substantive part of the notification no concession or benefit need be given to the assessees, the exporters, by giving it beneficial interpretation. With regard to the procedural part of the notification, there is no necessity to give strict interpretation. If there is substantive compliance, and even if there is a slight deviation regarding the procedure even then the assessees would be entitled to the benefit given by the notification. Shri. Joseph contends that in these cases, the substantive rules contemplate only substantial compliance and not strict compliance with the notification. He places reliance on R.12 in support of his arguments. 7. As regards the peculiar circumstances of these cases, Shri. Joseph contends that in September, 1981 when the notification was issued the excise department officials themselves were not aware of the notification and the procedure to be followed for registration. In such circumstances, a late registration or a registration which succeeded the exports does not mean that the benefit given under the notification should be denied to the exporters. He also contends that the late registration does not in any way cause, prejudice to the department. Form B prescribed in the notification fully protects the department against any possible claims which the department may have at a later point of time. He places reliance upon the decision reported in Electronics Ltd. v. Union of India and ore., 1981 E.L.T. 496 (Del.) and contends that where there is substantial compliance with the notification, the benefit given by the notification should not be denied to the exporters. 8. In this batch of references, the crucial questions are: (1) Whether the registration of the exporter is a condition precedent for claiming the benefit given by the notification. 8. In this batch of references, the crucial questions are: (1) Whether the registration of the exporter is a condition precedent for claiming the benefit given by the notification. (2) Whether the exporters who first exported blended tea and then got themselves registered as per the notification are entitled to claim the benefit of rebate as per the notification. (3) Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the registration under the notification No. 166/81 dated 23-9-81 when done for the first time can be done at anytime during the year 1981, and not necessarily prior to undertaking export." 9. Point No.1 to 3: To appreciate the controversy involved in this batch of cases, we must know the scheme of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the scheme of the Rules framed thereunder and the power under which various notifications are issued under the Act. S.37 of the Act enables the Central Government to make rules to carry into effect the purposes of this Act. Sub-section (2) enumerates, numerous matters regarding which the Central Government may make rules. While clause (ib) of subsection (2) provides for making of rules for collection of duties of excise and for. prescribing the authorities and their functions, etc., clause (ic) provides for making rules for the remission of duty of excise leviable on any excisable goods, etc. S.38 provides for publication of rules and notifications and for laying them before each House of Parliament. S.38(1) contemplates all rules made and notifications issued under this Act shall be published in the official gazette. When we come to the Central Excise Rules we find that R.12 and 12A which deal with rebate of duties on goods exported and rebate of duty on excisable material used in the manufacture of goods which are exported come under Chapter III of the Rules, which deal with levy and refund of and exemption from duty. It should be remembered that rebate of duty on goods exported is dealt with under R.12. That is the main rule dealing with rebate of duty on exported goods. Then R.12A deals with rebate of duty on excisable material used in the manufacture of goods which are exported. The present notification No. 166/81 dated 23-9-81 was issued under R.12A. It should be remembered that rebate of duty on goods exported is dealt with under R.12. That is the main rule dealing with rebate of duty on exported goods. Then R.12A deals with rebate of duty on excisable material used in the manufacture of goods which are exported. The present notification No. 166/81 dated 23-9-81 was issued under R.12A. Looking at the scheme of the Act and Rules it cannot be contended that R.12 and 12A deal with different and distinct subjects and hence they should be interpreted individually. Shri. P. Santhalingam is not justified in claiming that while interpreting Notification No.166/81 and R.12A, the provisions of R.12 and the standards applicable to R.12 cannot be imported. 10. During the course of arguments a controversy arose as to when exactly Notification No.166/81 was published in the Gazette of India. It is the claim of the exporters-assessees that they first came to know about this notification through newspapers and when they contacted the Central Excise authorities at Cochin, the departmental authorities pleaded ignorance and they did not know the procedure contemplated under the notification for registration and only subsequently by trade notice No.248/81 dated 30-10-1981, Annexure B in the paper book, they communicated this notification to the various traders. Till then the exporters were not in a position to know about the notification and hence they could not register themselves earlier. As can be seen from Annexure C, the various applications for registration were given mostly after 30-10-1981, while the shipments were earlier. The Standing Counsel of the Central Government produced the gazette notification in the last stages of the arguments and it is now clear that Notification No.166/81 was published in the Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 23-9-1981. Publication in the gazette constitutes general notice to everyone and hence it is not open to the exporters to claim that they were not aware of the notification, and that the central excise authorities were not able to enlighten them. The fact remains that the registration applications were given subsequent to the export being made. 11. With the above background of events, we shall now examine the notification to find out the answers for the three questions formulated by us earlier. The notification clearly indicates that it is being issued under sub-rule (2) of R.12A of the Central Excise Rules. The fact remains that the registration applications were given subsequent to the export being made. 11. With the above background of events, we shall now examine the notification to find out the answers for the three questions formulated by us earlier. The notification clearly indicates that it is being issued under sub-rule (2) of R.12A of the Central Excise Rules. The notification clearly mentions that a rebate of duty of excise at the rate of forty paise per kilogram shall be allowed in respect of tea used in the manufacture of blended tea, which is exported out of India. In the notification proper there are four clauses. The first clause contemplates that rebate shall be allowed if the goods are exported in accordance with the procedure set out in the appendix to the notification. The second clause contemplates that the value of the goods at the time of exportation is, in the opinion of the Collector of Central Excise, not less than the amount of the rebate of excise duty claimed. Clauses contemplates that the amount of rebate of excise duty admissible should not be less than Rs.5/-. Under Clause.4 the exporter undertakes to refund to the Collector of Central Excise on demand being made within six months of the date of payment, any rebate erroneously paid to him. The appendix stipulates the procedure. Under the appendix the first paragraph stipulates that the exporter of goods shall apply in Form A for registration for export to the Collector of Central Excise within whose jurisdiction he carries on his business. Under Para.2 of the appendix the exporter shall get the registration renewed in the month of January every year by applying in Form A. Paragraphs indicates that rebate of excise duty shall be allowed in respect of the goods exported through specified ports and the Maritime Collector of Central Excise shall be the authority for the exports made through the specified ports. Under clause (b) of Para.3 of the appendix exports through other. ports and export by land are covered. In such cases, the Collector of Central Excise is the competent authority to grant rebate. Under Para.4, application should be made in Form B to the Collector of Central Excise for claiming the rebate. Under clause (b) of Para.3 of the appendix exports through other. ports and export by land are covered. In such cases, the Collector of Central Excise is the competent authority to grant rebate. Under Para.4, application should be made in Form B to the Collector of Central Excise for claiming the rebate. This paragraph clearly indicates that the application in Form B should be accompanied by the bill of lading or shipping bill duly certified by the customs authorities to the effect that the goods have in fact been exported, k also stipulates that the application should be made before the expiry of period specified in S.11-B of the Act. In the main body of the notification and in the appendix there is nothing to indicate that the registration should precede the export. In the very nature of things for the year 1981, it is not possible to have prior registration because as indicated in Form A and also in Para.2 of the Appendix the registration and renewals are to be made in the month of January. For the year 1981 as the notification was issued on 23-9-1981, there is no possibility for effecting the registration in January, 1981. 12. In the main notification and the appendix which can be called as the substantive part of the notification, there is nothing to indicate that the registration should precede the export so as to enable the exporter to claim rebate of excise duty granted under the notification. In the present case on hand, the exporters have not in any way contravened or violated the substantive part of the notification. The notification itself clearly mentions that the goods should be exported in accordance with the procedure set out in the appendix to the notification. The appendix stipulates Form A for application for registration or renewal and Form B for claiming rebate of duty. For the first time in Form A we find some words indicating that the export should succeed the registration. For instance in Form A, the words used are: "We desire to register/renew our registration to export blended tea under claim for rebate of duty for the year" (emphasis supplied) Under the second clause of Form A the words used are: "We submit the details of the estimated quantity of blended tea to be exported, etc. For instance in Form A, the words used are: "We desire to register/renew our registration to export blended tea under claim for rebate of duty for the year" (emphasis supplied) Under the second clause of Form A the words used are: "We submit the details of the estimated quantity of blended tea to be exported, etc. (emphasis supplied) In the schedule of Form A it is mentioned that quantity of blended tea which is estimated to be exported during the year. Excepting these words in Form A and the schedule to Form A, there are no words in the main body of the notification to indicate that the registration should precede the export for the year 1981. As rightly contended by the respondents' counsel, in the present case, there is absolutely no violation of the substantive part of the notification. Only in the procedural part of the notification, there appears to be some deviation and in such cases, the rule of substantial compliance would satisfy the law and strict interpretation for the procedural part need not be given. We are in full agreement with this argument. The very object of issuing the notification is to encourage export of blended tea by giving rebates. If it is the intention of the Central Government to deny rebate for exports made in 1981, it was open to the Government to prescribe a specific date by which the registration should take place for the year 1981, the first year in which the scheme was introduced. The general rule that registration or renewal is in the month of January makes it impossible for the exporters to register themselves first and then export blended tea and claim rebate for the year 1981, because January, 1981 was over long prior to the issue of the notification. It should also be remembered that under the notification no follow-up action or scrutiny of the goods before export 'is contemplated. The only scrutiny that is contemplated is that the application for rebate of duty should be submitted in Form B along with the full description of the goods, quantity - gross/net and value, the number of date of bill of lading/shipping bill and it should be certified by the customs authorities as to the factum of export. The only scrutiny that is contemplated is that the application for rebate of duty should be submitted in Form B along with the full description of the goods, quantity - gross/net and value, the number of date of bill of lading/shipping bill and it should be certified by the customs authorities as to the factum of export. It should also be remembered that in Form B there is a specific stipulation to the effect that the applicant undertakes to refund on demand any payment of rebate made erroneously. 13. A combined reading of the notification, the appendix and Forms A and B, clearly indicates that registration is compulsory for claiming the rebate, but such registration need not precede exports for the year, namely, 1981. If the registration took place subsequent to the export in 1981, it is substantial compliance with the notification. From the next year onwards, namely, 1982 onwards, the registration or renewal should be done in January giving the estimated quantity of blended tea to be exported in the year. 14. The interpretation given to the notification by the Maritime Collector of Central Excise, Cochin that the conditions of the notification No.166/81 were not satisfied because the exports were made prior to registration is not correct. The interpretation given to the notification by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal is correct and it is in conformity with the purpose and objects of the notification. The argument of the Standing Counsel that strict interpretation for the notification should be given cannot be accepted. In fact R.12 which is the main rule regarding rebate of duty on goods exported, contains a proviso which reads as follows: "Provided that if the Collector is satisfied that the goods have in fact been exported, he may for reasons to be recorded in writing allow the whole or any part of the claim for such rebate even if all or any of the conditions laid down in any notification issued under this rule have not been complied with." It clearly indicates that the Collector is empowered to grant the rebate even if there are some violations of the conditions of the notification if he is satisfied that the goods have in fact been exported. It is true that under R.12A there is no proviso similar to the one found in R.12(1). It is true that under R.12A there is no proviso similar to the one found in R.12(1). But at the same time, while interpreting R.12A which is similar to R.12, it is open to. this Court to look into the scheme of the Rules and the methods adopted for interpreting the rules and give similar construction for the notification issued under R.12A also. In Electronics Ltd. v. Union of India, 1981 E.L.T. 496 (Del.) the Delhi High Court held that where the petitioner was doing his business by adopting the procedure which was akin to R.56A and it maintained statutory records which were required under R.56A, then on the basis of the records already maintained by the petitioner, it is possible for the competent authorities to work out the exact amount of exemption that can be availed of, by the petitioner under the notification, then he should be allowed the exemption. The court followed the principle of substantial compliance and held that substantial compliance is sufficient to get the benefit and strict compliance is not necessary. 15. The Tribunal in its order followed the decision reported in Sharif-uddin v. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 S.C. 303 and held that under the proviso to the notification, the appendix only stipulates procedure, and in this particular case, there is no violation of the substantive part of the notification. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the procedure is only regulatory or directory and not mandatory. 16. For the various reasons given above, on the three points formulated earlier, the following are our conclusions. We hold on point No.1 that the registration is compulsory, but in the first year it need not precede export, because the notification itself was issued on 23-9-1981. We hold on Point No.2 that the exporters who first exported blended tea and then got themselves registered are entitled to claim the rebate of duty of excise as provided for under the notification. We hold on Point No.3 that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that when done for the first time the registration can be done at any time during the year 1981 and not necessarily prior to undertaking export. 17. We hold on Point No.3 that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that when done for the first time the registration can be done at any time during the year 1981 and not necessarily prior to undertaking export. 17. For the various reasons given above, we hold that the Tribunal correctly appreciated the legal questions and we answer the reference in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the exporters-assessees and against the revenue. We declare that to be eligible for the rebate of duty on blended tea exported in terms of Notification No.166/81 dated 23-9-1981, the registration need not precede export for the year 1981. For the subsequent years, that is from 1982 onwards, the registration or renewal should be done in January giving the estimated quantity of blended tea to be exported and then export should be made. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Southern Regional Bench at Madras.