TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) TMI 400 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] , in the present case since notification was offered for sale on 21.09.2015 i.e. a date when the Notification No. 46/2015-Cus came into force. The decision in the appellant s own case cited above is directly applicable in the facts of the present case. In the present case the notification is effective from 21.09.2015 therefore, the appellant are not required to pay 5% increase in duty. Accordingly, the appellant are eligible for re-assessment of bills of entry on the basis of un-amendment Notification No. 46/2015-CUS at the rate of 7.5% duty. The impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed. - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in force. Hence, the increase of 5% duty is not applicable on the clearance under bills of entry dated 12.09.2015 17.09.2015. 2.3 He submits that this issue has been considered in the appellant s own case by this Tribunal, and in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs Kandla 2020 (373) ELT 113 (Tri.-Ahm.). He submits that this Tribunal in the said judgment has considered various High Court s and Supreme Court s judgments and also Ministry of Finance clarification under office memorandum No. 336/4/2003-TRU dated 09.10.2003. Accordingly, in view of the judgment in the appellant s own case, in the present case also, the effective date of Notification has to be taken as 21.09.2015 and not 17.09.2015. 3. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. The decision in the appellant s own case cited above is directly applicable in the facts of the present case. The relevant order portion is reproduced below: 4. We heard both the sides and perused the records. The issue to be decided is whether the Notification No. 120/2003, dated 1-8-2003 is effective from the date of publication i.e. 1-8-2003 as proposed by the revenue or from the date of offer for sale of the said notification i.e. 4-8-2003 as claimed by the appellant. In this regard, relevant Section 25(4)(a)(b) is reproduced below, which is prevalent at the relevant time :- Section 25 (4) Every notification issued under sub-section (1) [or sub-section (2A)] shall, - (a) Unless otherwise provided, come into forc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 respectively Sir With reference to the above, it is informed that the copies of Gazette of India, no. GSR 622(E), Serial No. 365 and bearing GI No. 2195, dated 1-8-2003 (Friday) were received on 1-8-2003 at 12:00 midnight at Kitab Mahal Sale Counter of this Department from Govt., of India Press, Mayapuri, Ring Road, New Delhi vide Delivery Challan No. 57721, dated 1-8-2003 and put on sale to the general public at 9:30 AM on 4-8-2003 (Monday). If you are not satisfied with the reply, you may appeal to the First Appellate Authority/Controller of Publications, Department of Publication, Civil Lines, Delhi 54 within stipulated time limit. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (G.D. Pandey) Central Public Information Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Authorities have not followed the judicial discipline. The decision of Karnataka High Court was subsequently upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court as cited (supra). On the identical issue the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. M.D. Overseas Ltd. also taken the same view as was taken by the Karnataka High Court and Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Param Industries Ltd. This judgment of M/s. M.D. Overseas Ltd. was also upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 6. In view of the above discussed facts coupled with the settled legal position in the judgment of M/s. Param Industries Ltd. (supra) and M/s. M.D. Overseas Ltd. (supra), the impugned order is not sustainable hence, the same is set aside, appeal is allowed. 4.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
