9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Effective date of the Notification dated 30th November 1982. 2. Entitlement to refund of the excess amount recovered. 3. Entitlement to interest on the refunded amount. Detailed Analysis: 1. Effective Date of the Notification Dated 30th November 1982: The primary issue revolved around the effective date of the Notification No. 284/82-C.E., dated 30th November 1982, which rescinded the partial exemption granted by Notification No. 30/79-C.E., dated 1st March 1979. The Appellants argued that the notification became effective from 30th November 1982 itself, as it was published in the Official Gazette on that date, in accordance with Section 38 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Respondents, however, contended that the notification became effective only when it was made available to the public on 8th December 1982. The court referred to several precedents to determine the effective date of the notification. In the case of General Fibre Dealers Ltd. v. Union of India, it was held that publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient to make a notification operative. However, in Harla v. The State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of promulgation and publication of law, stating that "before a law can become operative it must be promulgated or published." Similarly, in G. Narayana Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that a notification becomes effective only when the Gazette containing it is made available to the public. The court concluded that the Notification dated 30th November 1982 became effective on 8th December 1982, the date it was made available to the public. 2. Entitlement to Refund of the Excess Amount Recovered: Given the court's determination that the notification became effective on 8th December 1982, the Respondents were entitled to a refund of the excess amount recovered from them for the period between 30th November 1982 and 7th December 1982. The court found no infirmity in the findings and conclusion of the Learned Single Judge, who had ordered the refund of Rs. 35,57,094.74. 3. Entitlement to Interest on the Refunded Amount: Regarding the interest on the refunded amount, the Learned Single Judge had allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the judgment, i.e., 4th November 1987, until payment. The Respondents, however, sought interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The court, considering the facts and circumstances, directed that the Appellants shall pay the refunded amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 4th November 1987 until payment. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objections of the Respondents were allowed to the extent that the Appellants shall refund the sum of Rs. 35,57,094.74 to the Respondents together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 4th November 1987 until payment. No order as to costs was made.
|
