1996 (6) TMI 252 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds excise duty hike, rejects appeal on notification timing.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, affirming the validity and enforceability of the notifications issued on 25-3-1985 from the date of publication in ... Notification - Date of effect - Change in rate of duty for Cigarettes Issues Involved:1. Applicability and enforceability of notifications issued on 25-3-1985.2. Validity of demand for higher duty based on notifications announced via radio and TV but published in the Gazette later.3. Comparison with previous judgments, including Pankaj Jain Agencies case.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability and Enforceability of Notifications Issued on 25-3-1985:The appellant company challenged the demand for higher excise duty on cigarettes cleared on 25-3-1985, arguing that the notifications imposing the duty were not made available to the public until 15-4-1985. The appellant contended that the notifications were only cryptically announced on radio and TV without specifying the quantum of the duty increase. The Tribunal examined the applicability of Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, which relates mainly to Acts and not subordinate legislation, but noted that principles deducible from it could be applied.2. Validity of Demand for Higher Duty Based on Notifications Announced via Radio and TV but Published in the Gazette Later:The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that they could not collect the increased duty from consumers because the Gazette copy was only available on 15-4-1985. The appellant cited previous judgments, including the Pankaj Jain Agencies case, and argued that the notifications were not effectively communicated to the public. The Tribunal noted that in the Pankaj Jain Agencies case, the Supreme Court held that publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient for the notification to acquire operativeness and enforceability, regardless of when it was made available to the public. The Tribunal also referred to other judgments, including Bird Dyes & Chemicals and Pure Drinks (N.D.) Ltd., which supported the view that the date of publication in the Gazette was crucial.3. Comparison with Previous Judgments, Including Pankaj Jain Agencies Case:The Tribunal compared the facts of the appellant's case with the Pankaj Jain Agencies case and other relevant judgments. It emphasized that the Supreme Court in Pankaj Jain Agencies had ruled that publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient for a notification to be considered operative. The Tribunal also referred to the Western Bench's decision in the appellant's own case, where it was held that the notification was effective from the date of publication in the Gazette, despite being announced on radio and TV. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's arguments did not merit a different conclusion and rejected the appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, holding that the notifications issued on 25-3-1985 were valid and enforceable from the date of publication in the Official Gazette. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments based on the timing of the Gazette's availability to the public and upheld the demand for higher excise duty. The Tribunal also declined the appellant's request to refer the matter to a Larger Bench, citing the consistency of the decision with previous judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Pankaj Jain Agencies.