1994 (10) TMI 144 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Date of effectiveness of exemption Notification No. 202/86, dated 25-3-1986.

In this case, the crucial issue revolves around determining the date on which the exemption Notification No. 202/86, dated 25-3-1986, became effective. The appellant contends that they only learned about the notification on 31-3-1986, and thus, clearances before this date should be governed by the unamended notification. On the other hand, the department argues that the amending notification was effective from the date of issuance, i.e., 25-3-1986, as it was made public through a trade notice and Gazette Notifications on 27-3-1986. The Directorate of Publication of the Department of Revenue confirmed that copies of the Gazette Notifications were made available to the public on 27-3-1986. The appellant claims discrimination due to lack of timely information dissemination.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and highlighted that the mode of publication through the official gazette is crucial for the effectiveness of a notification. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that once a notification is published in the official gazette on a specific date, it takes effect from that date. In this case, the date mentioned on the Notification was 25-3-1986, and there was no evidence to suggest a different publication date. The Tribunal noted that knowing about the notification at a later date does not affect its operativeness. Despite the lack of information about the actual publication date from the Govt. of India Press, the presumption is that a gazette notification is published on the date indicated on it. Therefore, following the Supreme Court's precedent, the appeal was rejected based on the effective date of the notification.

Overall, the judgment underscores the significance of the official gazette publication date for the effectiveness of notifications, emphasizing that the date mentioned on the notification is pivotal. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents to determine the operativeness of the notification and rejected the appeal due to the lack of evidence to refute the presumed publication date indicated on the notification.