9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght EK 0538 on 21.01.2013 at 0308 hrs. The petitioner filed Bill of Entry No.9080170 in the morning of 21.01.2013. The duty of Rs. 2,46,75,092/@ 4.12% on the goods, which was the prevailing rate (under Notification No.12/2012Cus dated 17.03.2012), was paid vide Challan No.2005364364 dated 21.01.2013 and the assessment of Bill of Entry was, thereafter, made final on the same day. (3) The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad, issued a letter under VIII/48261/ ACC/ MISC Corp/ 2012/ 523 dated 30.01.2013 asking the petitioner to deposit differential duty along with interest as per amended Notification No.01/2013 which speaks about 6% i.e 2% increase. The petitioner vide letter dated 09.02.2013, responded to the same and submitted that the customs duty at the prevailing rate of 4.12% in terms of Notification No.12/2012Cus dated 17.03.2012 was already deposited, and the Notification No.1/2013Customs dated 21.01.2013 cannot be applied retrospectively to the goods already cleared. (4) The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad, issued another letter under File No.VII/48226/ ACC/Misc.Corres./ Gr.3&4/21014/639, Ahmedabad dated 25.08.2015 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n support of the aforesaid contention, the learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement rendered in the case of Param Industries Limited v. Union of India, reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 3 (Kar.) rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore which was subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court vide judgement reported in the case of Union of India V. Param Industries Ltd., 2015 (321) E.L.T. 192 (S.C.). He has urged that the Supreme Court has observed that for bringing the notification into force two conditions are mandatory i.e. (i) the same should be duly published in the Official Gazette; and (ii) it should be offered for sale on the date of issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi. He has stated that the Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by the High Court as the second condition was not satisfied. In view of the aforesaid judgement, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the department was not justified in claiming the differential amount of duty on the basis of notification No.1/2013Customs dated 21.01.2013. Mr.Nainavati has also placed reliance on the larg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Karnataka had observed that despite directions, the respondents have not chosen to produce the records to show that the averment made in the writ petition is false and that notification was published on 03.08.2001. However, in the present case, the notification was sent for publication on the very day it was issued, which is also not disputed by the petitioners. Further, the point that sub-section (4)(a) and (4)(b) of section 25 of the Act are independent of each other was not put forth before the court in the case of Param Industries Limited (supra), hence, the said judgement will not apply in the present case. Moreover, the case of Param Industries Limited (supra) pertained to fixation of tariff value in terms of section 14(2) of the Act where the statutory requirements were different as compared to Section 25(4) of the Act. Mr.Vyas has vehemently submitted that section 14(2) of the Act does not prescribe provision akin to sub-section (4)(b) of section 25 of the Act, therefore, the Notification No.1/2013Customs dated 21.01.2013 can be said to have come into force on the date of issuance. He has also placed reliance on the judgement reported in the case of Agarwal Industries Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f words not found in the provision of the rejection of certain words as meaningless. It is elementary that if a provision in a statute can be read without adding words thereto or subtracting words therefrom, that would be the ideal constructions, unless it throws up an absurd result. The literal construction in this case does not result in any absurdity." By placing reliance on the foregoing paragraphs, Mr. Vyas has submitted that the proposition of law envisaged in the aforesaid judgement will squarely apply in the present case, hence the impugned communication requires to be sustained. (13) Learned advocate Mr. Vyas has also laid emphasis on the provision contained in sub-section( 5) of section 25 of the Act. He has submitted that in the present case it can be said that the Notification came into force on a later date than the date of its issue, the same came to be published and offered for sale by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations on the same day, hence, the same will be applicable in the case of the petitioner. (14) After hearing the respective submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... city and Public Relations of the Board. Thus, the legislature had envisaged a common date of coming into force of the notification and date of publication and sale, and hence, the expression "the date of issue" is required to be construed accordingly, viz. when the notification is issued and is published and offered for sale. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Param Industries (supra) has agreed with the view adopted by the Karnataka High Court whereby it has been 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 light of the view taken by the Supreme Court, the respondents cannot be heard to contend that sub-section (4)(b) of section 25 of the Act is only directory and not mandatory. The facts emphasized in the present case, reveal that the Notification no.1/2013Customs dated 21.01.2013 was received by the government press on 21.01.2013 at 9.45 p.m., printed on 01.02.2013 and sent to Kit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
