9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso examined by the Gujarat High Court in the case of the appellant in ADANI WILMAR LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2022 (11) TMI 764 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where the issue arose before the Gujarat High Court was whether the exemption notification dated 01.03.2018 will be effective from 01.03.2018 or 06.03.2018, on which date it was digitally signed. In this connection the Gujarat High Court, after placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA OTHERS VERSUS M/S GS CHATHA RICE MILLS ANOTHER [ 2020 (9) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT] and also upon the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2 OTHERS [ 2020 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/S RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2019 (9) TMI 1374 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , observed that the effective date of Notification in terms of Section 25 (4) of the Act is the date of its publication in Official Gazette in e-mode on 06.03.2018 and the Notification, therefore, cannot be said to have come into force on 01.03.2018 and enhanced rate of duty by way of Notification No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No.29/2018-Cus dated 01.03.2018 giving effect for levy of BCD at the enhanced rate of 54% in respect of imported goods 1.e., RBD Palmolein of Edible Grade falling under Customs Tariff Heading 151190 and covered under Sl. No. 65 of original notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 has come into effect from the date of its issue on 01st March 2018; (ii) I hold that self-assessment of Bills of Entry No.5415756, 5415757 and 5415814, all dated 01.03.2018, made by the importers M/s. Adani Wilmar Limited, Ahmedabad under Section 17(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of subject goods i.e., 4999.910 MT of RBD Palmolein of Edible Grade imported by them through New Mangalore Port per vessel MT SONGA DAIMOND V.107, by claiming Basic Customs Duty exemption in excess of 54% under Sl. No.65 of original notification No.50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 read with amending notification No.29/2018- Cus dated 01.03.2018 and read with Section 15, Section 25(4), Section 31 and Section 33 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the duty paid by them as detailed at Table 1 are in order. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (Imports) held that Notification Number 29/2018 Cus dated 01.03.2018 [ the exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of section 15(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 [ the Customs Act ] , the rate of duty applicable to the imported goods is the rate in force when the Entry Inwards to the vessel carrying the imported goods was granted on 05.03.2018 and since the applicable rate of duty in force on 05.03.2018 was 40%, the appellant discharged the said duty. However, as clearance to the imported goods was not allowed on the ground that duty @54% was applicable in terms of the exemption notification, the appellant paid the duty under protest and requested for a speaking order to be passed. 9. According to the appellant, the exemption notification was effective only from 06.03.2018 when it was published in the Gazette after it was digitally signed on 06.03.2018 at 19:15 hours. 10. The appellant has tabulated and summarized the events as under:- Sr. No. Date Particulars 1. 01.03.2018 Bill of Entries filed by the appellant for clearance of RBD Palmolein Edible Grade 2. 02.03.2018 Vessel arrived and tendered Notice for Readiness‟ at Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 8057 of 2019 decided on 11.11.2022 ]. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India [ 2019 SCC Online AP 151 ] and the Gujarat High Court in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Through Authorised Representative vs. Union of India and 2 Others [ 2020-TIOL-1501-HC-AHM-CUS ] . The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that even though the notification is dated 01.03.2018, but it was uploaded for publication in the Official Gazette on 06.03.2018 at 19:15 hours after it was digitally signed. Learned counsel also pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in distinguishing the cases relied upon by the appellant for the reason that they pertained to the provisions of the unamended section 25(4) of the Customs Act without appreciating that the ratio of the decisions would be applicable even after the amendment was made in section 25(4) of the Customs Act in the year 2016. 16. Shri K.A. Jathin, learned authorised representative appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that the digital signature was made only for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e selected Government of India Press for publication of notification. Additionally, guidelines 28, 29, 40, 41 of the Guide for Organization further provide that officers cannot obtain registration for uploading in the e-Gazette portal for the purpose of e-publishing Gazette notification without digitally signing the declaration form. Thus, a notification cannot be published unless it is digitally signed by the nodal officer. 21. In the present case the notification dated 01.03.2018 was digitally signed on 06.03.2018 at 17:15 hours and before that it could not have been uploaded for publication. Thus, the exemption notification would come into force only on 06.03.2018. 22. This issue was also examined by the Gujarat High Court in the case of the appellant in Adani Wilmar Limited. The facts of the case reveal that on 27.02.2018 the vessel arrived with palm edible oils at Mundra anchorage. On 28.02.2018, the entry was granted to the vessel and on 01.03.2018 the petitioner filed the Bill of Entry with regard to the said goods which were assessed to duty at rate of 40% in terms of the Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017, as was amended by Notification No. 87/2017 dated 17. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of Section 25 (4) of the Act is the date of its publication in Official Gazette in e-mode on 06.03.2018 and the Notification, therefore, cannot be said to have come into force on 01.03.2018 and enhanced rate of duty by way of Notification No. 29/2018-CUS dated 01.03.2018 surely would not be, therefore, applicable. The petitioner would be entitled to pay only 40% of the duty which was applicable at the time of presenting the bills of entry for home consumption and not 54% under section 17(4) of the Act. (emphasis supplied) 23. The aforesaid judgment of the Gujarat High Court specifically dealt with the same exemption notification dated 01.03.2018 and held that since the notification was digitally signed on 06.03.2018 for e-publishing, the effective date of the notification in terms of section 25 (4) of the Customs Act would be the date of its publication in the Official Gazette on 06.03.2018 and so the notification cannot be said to have come into force on 01.03.2018. The High Court, therefore, held that the enhanced rate of duty under the exemption notification was not payable on 01.03.2018. 24. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the entry inwards was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... desh High Court in Ruchi Soya Industries was followed by the Gujarat High Court in Ruchi Soya Industries and the Madras High Court in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India [ 2020-TIOL-1263-HC-MAD-CUS ]. 27. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the High Courts, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the duty would be payable on the imported goods at the rates specified in the exemption notification dated 01.03.2018, even though the entry inwards was granted to the vessel on 05.03.2018 and the said exemption notification dated 01.03.2018 was published in the Official Gazette only on 06.03.2018, after it was digitally signed. The exemption notification came into effect only on 06.03.2018, on which date it was published in the Official Gazette after it was digitally signed for e-publication. The Commissioner (Appeals), was also not justified in distinguishing the cases cited by the appellant only for the reason that an amendment had been made in section 25(4) of the Customs Act in 2016. 28. The order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is, accordingly, set aside and the appeal is allowed. The amount of differential duty dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
