TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department only on 27.6.2008. Therefore, the notification cannot be said to have come into effect from 13.6.2008. It is pleaded by the appellant that the said information was received by the appellant only after filing the appeal and has prayed that the said document may be received as part of evidence - there are no reasons to discard the plea put forward by the appellant for the simple reason that the said information is a document issued under RTI Act by the concerned officer who is the CPIO and is authorized to issue such information. The issue as to when the notification would take its effect and the necessity for fulfilling the conditions in sub-clause (4) of Section 25 of the Customs Act has been addressed by the Hon ble Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently, a demand notice dated 9.7.2008 was issued to the appellant under section 28(1) of the Customs Act demanding differential duty of ₹ 1,45,29,968/- being short-paid duty. After adjudication, the original authority confirmed the demand. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri M.A. Kalam submitted that the let export order was given on 13.6.2008. On the very same date, the notification was issued enhancing the rate of duty to 15% of the invoice value. Both the department and the exporter were not aware of the said notification when the let export order was issued. The appellant has correctly paid the duty @ ₹ 300/- per MT, which was prevalent on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly on 13.6.2008 and the gazette was sent to the concerned department only on 27.6.2008. Therefore, it is very much clear that the notification was not published or put for sale on 13.6.2008. The notification, therefore, cannot be pressed into application on 13.6.2008 before its publication and offer for sale. He relied upon the decisions in the cases of Union of India Vs. Param Industries Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT 192 (SC); Kundan Rice Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2017 (352) ELT 184 (Tri. Del.) and M.D. Overseas Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2017 (353) ELT 12 (Guj.). He prayed that the miscellaneous application for receiving additional evidence may be taken on record. 3. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supported the findings in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation is a document issued under RTI Act by the concerned officer who is the CPIO and is authorized to issue such information. The miscellaneous application for receiving the additional document is thus allowed. 7. The issue as to when the notification would take its effect and the necessity for fulfilling the conditions in sub-clause (4) of Section 25 of the Customs Act has been addressed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Param Industries Ltd. (supra). The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:- 3. What we find is that the High Court has stated 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 g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd publication in their cases. The mode of publication can vary; what is a good method in our country may not necessarily be the best in another. But reasonable publication of some sort there must be. 5. These appeals therefore, are liable to fail only on the aforesaid ground and are dismissed accordingly. Civil Appeal Nos. 1808/2013, 1809/2013, 1810/2013, 1811/2013, 1812/2013, 1813/2013, 9661/2014 Civil Appeal No. 4875/2015 (@ SLP (C) No. 17415/2013), Civil Appeal No. 4876/2015 (@ SLP (C) No. 23141/2013) 6. Leave granted. 7. On the facts of these appeals as well, we find that though the notification may have been published on the date when the goods were cleared, it was not offered for sale by the conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
