Customs notification effective only on public availability; differential duty cannot apply to goods cleared earlier.

A customs notification is effective only when it is actually made public, not merely from the date printed on the Gazette, and the department bears the burden of proving any earlier publication date. Applying that rule, goods cleared before the duty-enhancing notification became publicly available could not be subjected to the increased rate. The differential duty demand was therefore unsustainable, and relief followed because the notification had not come into force before clearance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a customs notification took effect from the date printed on the Gazette or only from the date it was made available to the public; (ii) whether the demand for differential duty was sustainable when the goods had been cleared before the notification was publicly available.

Issue (i): Whether a customs notification took effect from the date printed on the Gazette or only from the date it was made available to the public.

Analysis: A Gazette notification is presumed to be published on the date shown on it, but that presumption can be displaced by proof of a later actual publication. Where the effective date is in dispute, the relevant date is the date on which the notification is actually made public, not merely the date printed on the Gazette. The burden of establishing the earlier effective date rested on the department, and the department ought to have assisted in placing the correct factual position before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The notification became effective only when it was made available to the public, not on the date printed on the Gazette.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for differential duty was sustainable when the goods had been cleared before the notification was publicly available.

Analysis: The record showed that the goods had been assessed and cleared before the notification enhancing duty was made available to the public. Since the notification had not yet come into force on the relevant date, the enhanced rate could not govern the clearance already made. The demand based on the later notification was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The demand for differential duty was not justified and the assessee was not liable to pay the additional amount.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside and relief was granted to the assessee because the duty-enhancing notification had not become operative before the goods were cleared.

Ratio Decidendi: A Gazette notification takes effect only from the date it is actually made public, and a duty demand based on a later-effective notification cannot be sustained against goods cleared before that date.

---