1987 (4) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Date of Effectiveness of Notifications.
2. Retrospective Effect of Notifications.
3. Tribunal's Authority to Determine Notification Effectiveness.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Date of Effectiveness of Notifications:
The primary issue is whether the changes effected under Notification Nos. 313, 314, and 315 of 1979, dated 17-12-1979, should apply to removals effected on 17-12-1979, even if the Gazette notifications were issued from the press on 18-12-1979 or later. The appellants contended that the notifications should be published and made available to the public to take effect, citing the judgment of the Madras High Court in Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. and Others, which held that a notification must be made available to the public to be effective. The respondents argued that the notifications explicitly stated they would come into effect on 17-12-1979 and should be enforced from that date.

2. Retrospective Effect of Notifications:
The judgment discussed the principle that notifications issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act cannot have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated. The Supreme Court in The Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. case held that the rule-making authority under the Central Excises and Salt Act does not have the power to make rules with retrospective effect. The judgment emphasized that a notification cannot govern events preceding its publication and must be effective only from the date it is made available to the public.

3. Tribunal's Authority to Determine Notification Effectiveness:
The Tribunal deliberated whether it could declare the effective date of the notifications as different from the date mentioned in the notifications themselves. The judgment referenced several High Court decisions, including those from Andhra Pradesh, Madras, and Allahabad, which held that the effective date of a notification is the date when the Gazette containing the notification is made available to the public. The Tribunal concluded that it could determine the effective date of the notifications based on when the Gazette was published and made available, rather than the date mentioned in the notifications.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal decided that the factual aspect of when the Gazette was published and made available to the public needs to be investigated. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, remitting the matter to the Assistant Collector for further investigation into the factual aspect before passing suitable orders.

Separate Judgments:
- Majority Opinion (Raghavachari and Prakash Anand): The notifications should be effective from the date they are made available to the public. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Collector for further investigation.
- Dissenting Opinion (G. Sankaran): The notifications should take effect from 17-12-1979 as stated. The appeal was dismissed.

Editor's Comments:
The judgment highlights the distinction between 'publication' and 'printing' of notifications, emphasizing that a notification is effective only when made available to the public. The comments also reference the Supreme Court decision in J.B. Chopra and Others v. Union of India, which allows Tribunals to examine the validity of statutory provisions, suggesting that the Special Benches of CEGAT can now examine the validity of statutory provisions.