Court rules in favor of petitioner regarding excise duty refund due to ineffective communication of Withdrawal Notification.

The court held that the Withdrawal Notification rescinding an earlier Exemption Notification became effective for the petitioner from the date they were personally notified, not from the date of general publication. The court ordered a refund of excise duty collected during the period when the Withdrawal Notification was not effectively communicated, citing lack of legal authority for such collection. The court emphasized its writ jurisdiction to grant relief despite statutory limitations. The petitioner's writ petitions were allowed, directing the refund of excise duty collected from November 30, 1982, to December 7, 1982, without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Effective date of Withdrawal Notification.
2. Refund of excise duty collected for the period before the effective date.

Summary:

Issue 1: Effective Date of Withdrawal Notification
The petitioner, a cigarette manufacturer, contested the effective date of the Withdrawal Notification No. 284/82-CE dated November 30, 1982, which rescinded the earlier Exemption Notification No. 30/79-CE. The petitioner argued that the Withdrawal Notification should be effective only from December 8, 1982, the date it was made available to the public. The court examined the legal requirement for notifications to be published in the Official Gazette and concluded that mere printing without making it available for public sale does not constitute effective notification. The court held that the Withdrawal Notification became effective for the petitioner only from December 7, 1982, the date the petitioner was notified by the third respondent.

Issue 2: Refund of Excise Duty
The petitioner sought a refund of the excise duty collected for the period from November 30, 1982, to December 7, 1982, arguing that the Withdrawal Notification was not effective during this period. The court agreed, stating that the duty collected during this period was without the authority of law under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the respondents to refund the excise duty collected from the petitioner for the period from November 30, 1982, to December 7, 1982. The court also clarified that the restrictions as to limitations found in the Act and the Rules cannot impede the writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions, declaring that the Withdrawal Notification took effect only from December 7, 1982, for the petitioner and directed the refund of the excise duty collected for the period from November 30, 1982, to December 7, 1982. No order as to costs was made.

---