9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 30/79-Central Excise, dated 1-3-1979, made under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government exempted cigarettes falling under a particular description from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon, as is in excess of the duty specified in the corresponding entry in Column (2) of the Notification. The petitioner had the benefit of this exemption Notification and was clearing the manufactured cigarettes on payment of the concessional excise duty. 3. However, by a Notification No. 284/82-C.E., dated 30-11-1982, hereinafter referred to as the withdrawal Notification, the earlier Notification No. 30/79-Central Excise, dated 1-3-1979 was rescinded. 4. On a demand being made for payment of full excise duty witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., dated 1-3-1979 under which a concession was available. This request of the petitioner was declined in the letter of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise dated 19-9-1983. Further representations made by the petitioners to the hierarchy of departmental authorities were of no avail. 7. It was in these circumstances, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 6048 of 1984 for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund all moneys collected in pursuance of Notification No. 284/82-C.E., dated 30.11.1982 for the period from 30.11.1982 to 7.12.1982 on clearances made during such period. W.P. No. 6049 of 1984 was filed for a writ of declaration declaring that the Notification No. 284/82 will be effective only from 8.12.1982. The prayer in W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Union of India [1986 (Vol.26) E.L.T. 494]. In that case, the excise duty was enhanced by Notification dated 30.3.1981. Certain goods were cleared from the warehouse on 30.3.1981 and, therefore, the Department insisted upon payment of enhanced rate of duty leviable under the Notification dated 30.3.1981 and not concessional rate of duty admissible prior to 30-3-1981. It was in that context, the Calcutta High Court held that the Notification would not become invalid on the mere ground that the copy of the Gazette in which it was published, was not made available within a reasonable time. It was further held that publication of Notification in the Official Gazette was sufficient to make it operative and Its availability to the public cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Notification was effective and enforceable only on and from 1-7-1971. Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that without proper Notification, viz., without putting the public on notice, it is impossible to enforce withdrawal of exemption earlier granted. Mere printing is not enough. After printing it must be published and "publish" means that it should be made known to the public. The normal method by which the public are made known is by making the copy of the Gazette, in which the Notification is printed, available for sale to the public. In the instant case, there is indisputable proof to show that the withdrawal Notification was made available for sale to the public only on 8-12-1982. The result is that the withdrawal Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
