2015 (6) TMI 732 - SC - Customs

Effective date and time of effective Rate of Duty - Effect of notification - bill of entry was filed filed on 03.08.2001 - notification was sent for publication after the normal office hours, i.e., much after 5 p.m. on 03.08.2001. - Held that - For bringing the notification into force and make it effective, two conditions are mandatory, viz., (1) Notification should be duly published in the official gazette, (2) it should be offered for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi. In the present case, admittedly, second condition was not satisfied inasmuch as it was offered for sale only on 06.08.2001, as it was published on 03.08.2001 in late evening hours and 04/05.08.2001 were holidays. - Though the notification may have been published on the date when the goods were cleared, it was not offered for sale by the concerned Board, which event took place much thereafter. Therefore, it was not justified and lawful on the part of the Department to claim the differential amount of duty on the basis of said notification. - Decision in the case of Harla v. The State of Rajasthan 1951 (9) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT followed - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of notification under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act regarding import duty on edible oils.
2. Validity of notification publication and its effect on goods already cleared.
3. Compliance with mandatory conditions for notification effectiveness.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of a notification under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act concerning the import duty on edible oils. The respondents, engaged in the import and export of edible oils, faced a situation where the import duty on RBD Palmolein was raised after goods were cleared based on an earlier notification. The appellant demanded the difference in tariff, citing a new notification effective from a specific date. The respondents contested this demand, leading to writ petitions challenging the duty determination.

2. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, emphasizing that for a notification to be effective, two conditions must be met: publication in the official gazette and offering for sale by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi on the date of issue. In this case, the second condition was not fulfilled as the notification was offered for sale only after the specified date due to holidays. The judgment cited the 'Harla v. The State of Rajasthan' case to support the importance of public knowledge and publication for the effectiveness of orders or notifications.

3. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, highlighting the necessity of fulfilling both conditions for a notification to be valid and enforceable. The judgment dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the failure to offer the notification for sale on the date of issue rendered the differential duty claim unjustified and unlawful. The court did not delve into other issues, as the non-compliance with mandatory conditions was sufficient to decide the case in favor of the respondents. The appeals were allowed solely on the ground of non-compliance with the essential conditions for notification effectiveness.