Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2013 (2) TMI 675

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e business of purchase and sale of RBD Palmolein oil, etc. They were clearing the said goods for consumption within the country. As per statutory requirements, the bills of entry were filed by them with the Customs Authorities both at the time of bonding in and clearing from the warehouse. 4. The petitioners, in the course of business imported RBD Palmolein (hereinafter referred to as "goods"), and submitted bills of entry duly paying Customs Duty with reference to the actual value of the imported goods in terms of S. 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. A portion of the imported goods was cleared by the petitioners on 3-8-2001 and 4-8-2001 on the basis of valuation with reference to actual value. 6. The Central Board of Exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Gazette was made available for public sale on 6-8-2001 as per their records. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is asserted that the Notification No. 36/2001-Cus. (N.T.) was published on 3-8-2001; that it is effective from 3-8-2001; that the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhajraj - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 431 (S.C.) had held that notification comes into operation as soon as it is published in the Official Gazette; individual service of the general notification on every member of the public is not required; non-availability of Gazette notification cannot be pleaded by the petitioners for denying liability to pay duty as per the notification; and that the 2nd respondent had rightly assessed the goods t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Gazette and where any such tariff values are fixed, the duty shall be chargeable with reference to such tariff value. 14. In contrast, S. 25(1) empowers the Central Government to grant exemption of goods from duty and sub-section (4) thereof states that such notification will come into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official Gazette and offered for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi. 15. In view of the fact that there is no requirement in S. 14 that, to be effective, a notification issued under the said provision, should also be offered for sale, we are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Ganesh Das Bhojraj (supra). The Supreme Court overruled New Tobacco Co. (supra) and approved the decision in Pankaj Jain Agencies (supra). It held that for bringing a notification u/s. 25 of the Act into operation, the only requirement of the section is its publication in the Official Gazette and no further publication is contemplated; that individual service of a general notification on every member of the public is not required and the interested person can acquaint himself with the contents of the notification published in the Gazette; that Gazette is admissible being the official record evidencing public affairs and the Court is required to presume its contents as genuine u/s. 35 and 38 r/w S. 81 of the Evidence Act, 1872 unless the c....