TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, the said Notification would come into force only on 04.02.2013 when it was offered for sale to the public. On 21.01.2013 when the goods were cleared, the rate of Customs duty was 4% as per the unamended Notification 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 and the appellant has correctly paid the Customs duty on the said goods. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20363/2017-DB - Final Order No. 20720/2019 - Dated:- 20-8-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Ms. Asmita Nayak, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Madhup Sharan, Asst. Commr. (AR) ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... day i.e. 21.01.2013. On the same day i.e. 21.01.2013, the rate of duty applicable on the imported goods was enhanced to 6% vide Notification No. 01/2013-Cus. dated 21.01.2013. The said Notification No. 01/2013 was published in the Official Gazette and was made known to the industry at large only post filing of the Bill of Entry. Thereafter on 02.06.2015, the Assistant Commissioner vide his letter directed the appellant to pay the differential duty alleged to be arising as a result of the rate change under Notification No. 01/2013. The appellant vide their reply dated 06.07.2015 explained to the Assistant Commissioner that they are not liable to pay enhanced rate of duty. Thereafter on 03.12.2015, a show-cause notice was issued to the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the Customs Act, 1962. She further argued that Notification No. 01/2013-Cus. although was issued on 21.01.2013 was published in the Gazette of India only on 01.02.2013 and was dispatched to Kitab Mahal for offer to sale to public on 04.02.2013 and as per the mandatory directions provided in Section 25(1) of the Act and non-observance of the said direction, Notification No. 1/2013 would neither come into force nor be operative from 21.01.2013 and therefore the said Notification cannot be made applicable to the goods imported by the appellant which was cleared on 21.01.2013. She also argued that the legal proposition that whether Notification No. 01/2013 is operative from 21.01.2013 or on the date of publication in the Gazette and offer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions relied upon by the appellant cited supra. We further note that the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case of M.D Overseas Ltd. has categorically held in para 18 as under: 18. In our considered opinion, the proposition of law enunciated in the case of Param Industries Limited (supra) will govern the controversy raised in the present petition. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court and the Apex Court in case of Param Industries Limited (supra) while dealing with issuance of notification issued under Section 14(2) of the Act has considered the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 25 of the Act has observed that for bringing the notification into force and making it effective, two condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court was upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue which is reported in 2017 (356) E.L.T. A136. Further, we find that the Apex Court in the case of Param Industries Ltd . on identical issue has held in para 7 as under: 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 concerned Board, which event took place much thereafter. Therefore, it was not justified and lawful on the part of the Department to claim the differential amount of duty on the basis of said notification. These appeals are, accordingly, allowed only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
