2020 (2) TMI 400 - AT - Customs

Tribunal sets aside order, citing effective date of Notification No. 120/2003 & Customs Act.

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd Versus C.C. -Kandla

The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, based on the established legal position that the effective date of Notification No. ... Date on which Notification coming into force - N/N. 120/2003 dated 01.08.2003 - whether the Notification is effective from the date of publication i.e. 01.08.2003 as proposed by the revenue or from the date of offer for sale of the said notification i.e. 04.08.2003 as claimed by the appellant? HELD THAT:- From section 25, particularly from clause (b) it is clear that the notification shall come into force when the notification is issued, published in the Official Gazette and also offered for sale. Therefore, all the three event are necessary i.e. notification should be issued, published in the Official Gazette of Central Government and offered for sale, that means the date on which the notification is offered for sale shall be the relevant effective date of notification, even though, the date of issue of notification and publication is prior to the date of offer for sale. From the perusal of the Gazetted Notification it is clear that the reply is in respect of Notification No. 120/2003-Cus dated 01.08.2003 GSR 622 (E), Serial no. 365 and bearing GI No. 2195 dated 01.08.2003. With the above documents it is clear that the Notification No. 120/2003-Cus though issued on 01.08.2003 and published on 01.08.2003 but offered for sale only on 04.08.2003. Therefore, the same came into effect on 04.08.2003, whereas the Bills of Entry were filed on 01.08.2003 therefore, the benefit of unamended Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March, 2002 was available to the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Interpretation of the effective date of Notification No. 120/2003, Applicability of section 25(4)(a)(b) of Customs Act, 1962, Judicial precedents on the effective date of notifications.Analysis:1. Interpretation of the effective date of Notification No. 120/2003:The case involved the interpretation of the effective date of Notification No. 120/2003 dated 01.08.2003, specifically whether it should be considered effective from the date of publication or the date of offer for sale. The appellant argued that the notification should be effective from the date of offer for sale, i.e., 04.08.2003, based on the amended section 25(4)(a)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Applicability of section 25(4)(a)(b) of Customs Act, 1962:The tribunal analyzed section 25(4)(a)(b) which states that a notification shall come into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official Gazette and also be published and offered for sale on the date of its issue. The tribunal emphasized that all three events - issue, publication, and offer for sale - are crucial for the notification to be effective. In this case, the notification was issued and published on 01.08.2003 but was offered for sale to the general public on 04.08.2003.3. Judicial precedents on the effective date of notifications:The tribunal referred to various judicial precedents to support its decision. It highlighted the judgments of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/S. PARAM INDUSTRIES LTD. and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M.D. OVERSEAS LTD. Both courts had ruled that the effective date of a notification is when it is offered for sale, not just the date of publication. These decisions were further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent appeals, establishing a legal precedent that the date of offer for sale is crucial in determining the effectiveness of a notification.In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal based on the established legal position that the effective date of Notification No. 120/2003 was 04.08.2003, in line with the amended section 25(4)(a)(b) and supported by judicial precedents. The tribunal emphasized the importance of following judicial discipline and precedent in interpreting legal provisions and making decisions.