9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of the effective date of a withdrawal notification regarding excise duty, the legal significance of making the Gazette available for sale to the public, and the entitlement to the benefit of an earlier exemption notification.
Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Effective Date of Withdrawal Notification: The case involved a dispute regarding the effective date of a withdrawal notification (Notification No. 284/82, Central Excise, dated November 30, 1982) rescinding an earlier exemption notification. The petitioners contended that they should only be liable for the differential duty from the date the withdrawal notification was made known to the public. The court considered the principle that a notification must be made known to the public by making the Gazette available for sale to enforce it. The court held that in this case, the withdrawal notification became effective only from the date it was available for sale to the public, which was December 8, 1982. 2. Legal Significance of Making the Gazette Available for Sale: The court emphasized the legal significance of making the Gazette available for sale to the public in determining the enforceability of a notification. It was held that without proper notification and making it public, it is impossible to enforce the withdrawal of an earlier exemption. The court cited precedents where notifications were held to be enforceable only from the date they were made available to the public, emphasizing that mere printing is not sufficient, and the notification must be published and made known to the public. 3. Entitlement to Benefit of Earlier Exemption Notification: Since the withdrawal notification was not made known to the public during the period in question (November 30, 1982, to December 5, 1982), the court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the earlier exemption notification (Notification No. 30/79, Central Excise, dated March 1, 1979). Consequently, the court upheld the order directing the refund of the amount collected from the petitioners during that period based on the withdrawal notification, ignoring the earlier concession. The court also affirmed the orders in other related writ petitions. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeals, ruling in favor of the petitioners (respondents in the writ appeals) and awarded costs. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the refund based on the effective date of the withdrawal notification and the legal requirement of making notifications public through the Gazette.
|
