Notification 46/2015-Cus applies from goods offering date not notification date, duty increase liability avoided

Patanjali Foods Limited Versus C.C.E & S.T. -Silvasa

Patanjali Foods Limited Versus C.C.E & S.T. -Silvasa - TMI Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No. 46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 - Effective date of notification - Payment of duty.

The issue in the present case is whether Notification No. 46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 is effective from the date of notification or the date when it was offered for sale. The appellant argues that the notification should be effective from the date it was offered for sale, which in this case was 21.09.2015. They rely on Section 25(4)(b) of the Customs Act, which states that the notification comes into force when offered for sale, not just when published in the official gazette. They also refer to a previous Tribunal judgment and Ministry of Finance clarification supporting their position.

The appellant contends that since the notification was offered for sale on 21.09.2015, the effective date of the notification should be considered as 21.09.2015, and not 17.09.2015. They argue that on the date duty was payable, which was 18.09.2015, the notification was not yet in force. Therefore, they assert that the 5% increase in duty should not be applicable to the clearance under bills of entry dated 12.05.2015.

The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and examined the records. It was noted that although Notification No. 46/2015-CUS was issued on 17.09.2015, it was offered for sale on 21.09.2015. Referring to Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal concluded that the notification comes into effect only when it is offered for sale. Citing a previous judgment in a similar case, the Tribunal determined that since the notification was offered for sale on 21.09.2015, that was the date when it came into force. As a result, the appellant was deemed eligible for re-assessment of bills of entry at the rate of 7.5% duty, without the 5% increase.

The Tribunal highlighted the importance of following legal provisions and judicial discipline. It noted that previous authorities had not considered relevant case law, including judgments from the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, which supported the appellant's position. Based on the settled legal position and case law, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief.

The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 22.12.2023.