9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied therein, at the rate of 1/8% ad valorem with effect from 1-11-1980. The Order was published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(ii), dated 27-10-1980. The Paper and Paper Board Cess Rules, 1981 were published in a Notification dated 16-2-1981 laying down the procedure for collection of the aforesaid Cess. The appellants are manufacturers of paper and paper board. They paid Cess on their products during the period from 1-11-1980 to 15-2-1981 at the aforesaid rate. They submitted an application claiming refund of the Cess paid, on the ground that no Cess was payable during the period from 1-11-1980 to 15-2-1981 as the rules prescribing the procedure for collection of Cess was published in the Official Gazette on 16-2-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to accept the contention of the learned Advocate that the Order dated 27-10-1980 levying Cess on the goods in question at the rate of 1/8th per cent ad valorem with effect from 1-11-1980 was not made available to the public on 27-10-1980. There is no material before us to support his contention. The mere fact that the draft rules were published in the Gazette of India on 27-10-1980 inviting suggestions or objections and that the Paper and Paper Board Cess Rules, 1981 were notified in the Gazette of India on 16-2-1981 does not mean that the Government Order levying Cess at the rate of 1/8th per cent with effect from 1-11-1980 was not published for information of the public on 27-10-1980. It cannot also be said that this Order dated 27-10-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise, Bangalore. We find no reason to take a different view and accordingly, following the aforesaid four decisions, we hold that the Cess was correctly recovered in the present case during the period from 1-11-1980 to 15-2-1981 and the appellants were not entitled to the refund thereof. There is, therefore, no justification to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellants has relied on a few decisions as indicated in paragraph 2 (Supra). In the case of Shri G. Narayan Reddy and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported in 1975 (35) STC 319 (Andhra Pradesh), the Government Order altering the Third Schedule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present case to show that the Government Order dated 27-10-1980 was not made available to public prior to 1-11-1980 which was the date of effect of that order. The other three judgments, namely AIR 1979 SC 888, AIR 1951 SC 467 and 1976 (37) STC 314 are not relevant to the point raised by the learned Advocate. In the case reported in AIR 1979 SC 888 (State of Madhya Pradesh and another etc. v. Ram Ragubir Prasad Agarwal and Others), the Hon ble Supreme Court held that publication of the syllabus must precede the prescription of text books or their preparation. In AIR 1951 SC 467 (Harla v. The State of Rajasthan), the Hon ble Supreme Court held that any law, rule or regulation could not come into force without publication in the Gazett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
