9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Civil Appeal Nos. 7801-7811 of 2004, Civil Appeal No. 1808 to 1813 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent which was issued by the appellant stating that with effect from 03.08.2001 (incidentally this is the date on which the bill of entry was filed and goods were cleared by the respondent as aforesaid), the tariff value in respect of RBD Palmolein had been raised to USD 372 per metric ton and therefore, the respondent was liable to pay the difference in the tariff which was paid on the basis of earlier notification. The respondent contested the aforesaid demand raised in the show cause notice by filing reply and contending that the notification which was issued under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, raising the import duty had not come into effect from 03.08.2001. The respondent filed the writ petitions challenging the action of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the High Court which is in confirmity with the law laid down by this court in 'Harla v. The State of Rajasthan' [1952 (1) SCR 110] wherein this court formulated the aforesaid principle in the following manner: - The principle underlying this question has been judicially considered in England. For example, on a somewhat lower plane, it was held in Johnson v. Sargant that an Order of the Food Controller under the Beans, Peas and Pulse (Requisition) Order, 1917 does not become operative until it is made known to the public, and the difference between an Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
