TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on which excise duty is payable. By an exemption Notification No. 30/79, Central Excise, dated March 1, 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 petitioners had the benefit of this exemption notification and was clearing the manufactured cigarettes on payment of the concessional excise duty. However, by a Notification No. 284/82, Central Excise, dated November 30, 1982, hereinafter referred to as the withdrawal notification, the earlier Notification No. 30/79, Central Excise, dated Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viz., on December 8, 1982, and the duty payable by the petitioner for the period from November 30, 1982, to December 7, 1982, should be based on the earlier Notification, viz., Notification No. 30/79, Central Excise, dated March 1, 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 September 19, 1983. Further representations made by the petitioners to the hierarchy of departmental authorities were of no avail. It was in these circumstances that 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, Central Excise, dated Novemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Publications. In this view, the learned judge allowed all the three writ petitions. In these writ appeals, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions urged before the learned judge. He relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in General Fibre Dealers v. Union of India [1987] 13 ECC 96 ; [1986] 26 ELT 494. In that case, the excise duty was enhanced by notification dated March 30, 1981. Certain goods were cleared from the warehouse on March 30, 1981, and, therefore, the Department insisted upon payment of enhanced rate of duty leviable under the notification dated March 30, 1981, and not concessional rate of duty admissible prior to March 30, 1981. It was in that context, the Calcutta High Court held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 STC 314, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, when dealing with a case where a Government order rescinding the exemption under section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, with effect from April 19, 1971, by notification dated May 18, 1971, was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on July 1, 1971, held that the notification was effective and enforceable only on and from July 1, 1971. Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that, without a 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 nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
