9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government is a follow up action. But nonetheless that follow up action has to be performed on the date of issue of the notification by the Central Government. There is thus ample evidence to hold that the mandate that the notification issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2A) shall also be published and offered for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relation of the Board was duly complied with. The writ petitioner cannot succeed because there is evidence which has remained uncontroverted to show that the notification was duly published in the official gazette on 17th September, 2015 and the notification was also offered for sale on 17th September, 2015 by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relation of the Board. The notification came into force on 17th September, 2015 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - M.A.T. No. 260 of 2016 with CAN No. 1658 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2016 - Girish Chandra Gupta and Indrajit Chatterjee, JJ. Shri G.L. Rawal, Anirban Ray, Pranit Bag, P.K. Das and D. Das, for the Appellant. Shri S.B. Saraf and K.K. Maity, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The notification has to be published in the Official Gazette. and, (c) The gazette notification has to be offered for sale. 6. Unless these three steps are complied with, according to him, the notification cannot be said to have come into force. 7. In this case the gazette notification was published on 17th September, 2015 but the same was not, according to him, offered for sale to the public on 17th September, 2015. The gazette notification, according to him, was offered for sale only on 21st September, 2015. In support of his submission he relied upon a letter dated 12th October, 2015 in response to the petitioner s application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is at Page 130 of the petition, which goes to show that the notification dated 17th September, 2015 was received on 21st September, 2015 at 3.30 p.m. at Kitab Mahal, Sale Counter of the concerned department. He also relied on a letter dated 30th October, 2015 also in answer to an application made by the writ petitioner under the RTI Act, 2005 from which it appears that the printed gazette was despatched from the Government of India Press, Mayapuri, New Delhi, for sale on 21st September, 2015. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed pursuant to the order dated 21st January, 2016 should be deemed to have been admitted. 15. Mr. Saraf, added that reliance placed upon the information obtained by the writ petitioner pursuant to its application under Right to Information Act, is of no significance. He submitted that in any event he does not admit the correctness of the information relied upon by the writ petitioner/appellant. 16. Mr. Saraf, submitted that the reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of Param Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 3 (Kar.), is altogether misplaced because the question which arises for determination in this case was not the question before the High Court of Karnataka. He submitted that the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in an appeal arising out of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court is also of no assistance to the writ petitioner/appellant because the question which has cropped up before this Court was not considered by Their Lordships. In the alternative he submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court does not militate against the contention of Revenue. His further submission shall be adverted to during our discussion to be mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official Gazette; (b) also be published and offered for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where a notification comes into force on a date later than the date of its issue, the same shall be published and offered for sale by the said Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations on a date on or before the date on which the said notification comes into force. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no duty shall be collected if the amount of duty leviable is equal to, or less than, one hundred rupees. 18. The question for consideration is as follows :- When did the notification dated 17th September, 2015 issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act come into force? 19. Mr. Rawal contended that there are three steps, quoted above, which have to be complied with before a notification can come into force. Whereas Mr. Saraf submitted that the question as to when does a notification come into force has to be answered by construing sub-section (4) of Section 25 alone. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 109. I state that the above Notification was received by DPPR on 17-9-2015. Photocopy of the said Notification is annexed hereto and marked as annexure R-1 . I state that according to Section 25(4)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 the said Notification was published on 17-9-2015 and offered for sale on 17-9-2015 by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi. However, on 17-9-2015 no person came to the sale counter of DPPR to purchase the above said Notification. 22. The contents of the aforesaid affidavit have remained uncontroverted. 23. Mr. Saraf is right in contending that under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure every allegation of fact in a plaint or a pleading if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant or the respondent as the case may be shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. 24. The writ petitioner obviously is not under any disability. Far from denying the contents of the aforesaid affidavit no opposition thereto was filed. He also drew our attention to Section 58 of the Evidence Act, which reads as follows :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a wing of the Central Board of Excise constituted under the Central Board of Revenue Act, 1963. 27. Mr. Rawal was at pains to show that the copy of the official gazette was not available before 21st September, 2015 as would appear from the submissions recorded herein above. 28. Copy of the official gazette may or may not have been available before 21st September, 2015. Nothing really turns on that. Once the fact that the notification was also published and offered for sale on 17th September, 2015 by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relation of the Board is established there is no scope for any further controversy. 29. We may now notice the judgment in the case of Param Industries Ltd. (supra) relied upon by Mr. Rawal. The question for consideration before the Karnataka High Court was did the notification under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act come into effect on 3rd August, 2001? Or did the same come into effect on 7th August, 2001 when copy of a gazette notification was received by the Customs authorities? 30. Section 14 of the Customs Act is a provision for valuation of goods. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides as follows :- 14. Valuation of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary is proved. Despite directions the respondents have not chosen to produce the records to show that averment made in the Writ Petitions is false and that notification was published on 3-8-2001 itself. 33. He contended that under Section 81 of the Evidence Act there is a presumption in favour of a gazette which reads as follows :- 81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other documents. - The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London Gazette or any Official Gazette, or the Government Gazette of any colony, dependency or possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom printed by the Queen s Printer and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody. 34. He added that there is also a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that all official and judicial acts were regularly performed. The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in spite of the aforesaid presu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/5-8-2001 were holidays. 38. Even conceding that the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Param Industries Ltd. (supra) upheld the judgment of High Court and laid down the requirement in Paragraph 3 of the judgment, the writ petitioner cannot succeed because there is evidence which has remained uncontroverted to show that the notification was duly published in the official gazette on 17th September, 2015 and the notification was also offered for sale on 17th September, 2015 by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relation of the Board. 39. Even if the two conditions are deemed to be mandatory there is indeed evidence to show that both of them were duly complied with. The official Gazette dated 17th September, 2015 was produced before us by Mr. Saraf. As regards the other condition, we have indicated above that the same was duly complied with. 40. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Rawal that both sub-sections (4) and (5) have to be read together. The sub-section (5) of Section 25 deals with a situation in which the notification has been issued in advance and is intended to become operative at a future date. 41. For the aforesaid reasons, we find n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
