TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fective and cannot be enforced from 17.09.2015 and the same is not applicable to the goods imported by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company duly registered under the Companies Act. It transpires that the petitioner entered into a contract dated 27.07.2015 with its foreign supplier M/s. Aavanti Industries Private Limited, Singapore for import of 10,000 MTs of Crude Palm Oil of Edible Grade in bulk on the terms and conditions as stated in the contra ct. Accordingly, the vessel carrying the aforesaid imported goods arrived at Mangalore port on 17.09.2015 around 1600 hours. The petitioner had filed four Bills of Entry bearing Nos. 2619662, 2619678, 2619680 and 2619708 dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner are two fold. Firstly, it is contended that no opportunity was provided by the Department while issuing the revised demand enhancing the duty at 12.5% from 7.5%. Secondly, it is argued that the notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 which prescribes the rate of duty at 12.5% substituting the earlier duty fixed at 7.5% is not applicable to the subject goods. 5. The subject goods were imported on 17.09.2015 at 16 hours before the notification No.46/2015 has come into effect. As such, the notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015, on the basis of which the revised demand was made enhancing the rate of duty was not available for the department to enhance the duty. It is submitted that the notification issued by exercising ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification at 7.5%. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA V/S. PARAM INDUSTRIES LTD., reported in 2015 (321) ELT 192 (SC). 6. Learned counsel Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for the respondent/department would submit that Section 25(4) of the Act was amended by Finance Act 2016 (28 of 2016) with effect from 14.05.2016 whereby second condition of offering the notification for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relation Board, New Delhi has been omitted. The only condition now contemplated under Section 25(4) of the Act is Sub-Section (1) or Sub- Section (2A) shall be published in the official gazette. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 7.5%. It i s later on based on the notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 the revised demand was issued enhancing the rate of duty from 7.5% to 12.5%. The crucial question would be - Whether the notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 is applicable to th e present facts of the case? 9. Section 25(1) and Section 25(4) of the Act reads thus: "25. Power to Grant Exemption from Duty. - (1) If the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt generally either absolutely or subject to such conditions (to be fulfilled before or after clearance) as may be specified in the notification goods of any specified description from the wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation Civil Lines, Delhi on the information sought by the petitioner under the RTI Act, 2005 reads thus: "With reference to the above, it is informed that the copy of Gazette of India containing notification No.46/2015 - customs dated 17.09.2015 was received on 21.09.2015 at 3.30 PM at Kitab Mahal, Sale Counter of this Department from Govt. of India Press, Mayapuri, Ring Road, New Delhi and put on sale to the general public on 21.09.2015. If you are not satisfied with the reply, you may appeal to the First Appellate Authority/Controller of Publications, Department of Publication, Civil Lines, Delhi - 54 within stipulated time limit." 12. A perusal of this information reveals that the copy of the Gazette of India containing notifica....