TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12. Though the notification is dated 20.12.2012 but the same was undisputedly published in the Official Gazette on 24.02.2013, therefore the relevant date of entry inwards of the goods covered under bill of entry dated 20.12.2012, the notification had not come into effect, therefore, the safeguard duty is not applicable in the present import. He submits that even though the Notificaiton issued at a particular date but the notification would be effective only after it is published in the Official Gazette. He placed reliance on the following judgments: • UOI vs G S Chatha Rice Mills 2020 (374) ELT 289 (SC) • Adani Wilmar Ltd. 2023 (2) CENTAX 325 (Guj.) • Adani Wimar Ltd. 2023 (384) ELT 321 (Tri. Bang.) • Faqir Chand Vinod Kumar 2023 (386) ELT 117 (Tri. Mum) • Param Industries Ltd. 2002 (150) ELT 3 (kar.) • M.D. Overseas Ltd. 2017 (353) ELT 12 (Guj.) • Jindal Industries 2002 (145) ELT 508 (Del.) • Kundan Rice Mills 2017 (352) ELT 184 (Tri. Del.) 3. Shri M.G. Rayka, learned Additional Commissioner (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and "special economic zone" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in Explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944). (4) The duty chargeable under this section shall be in addition to any other duty imposed under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force. (5) The duty imposed under this section shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of four years from the date of such imposition: "[Provided that if the Central Government is of the opinion that such article continues to be imported into India from the People's Republic of China so as to cause or threatening to cause market disruption to domestic industry, the Central Government may, notwithstanding the measures taken by the domestic industry towards adjustment to such market disruption orany threat arising thereof, if considers necessary that such duty should continue, extend the period of imposition of such safe guard duty for a period not beyond the period of ten years from the date on which the safeguard duty was first imposed.] [(5A) The provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icial Gazette, therefore, the Notification by which the safeguard duty was imposed, did not come into effect on 24.12.2012, therefore, on that date on the clearance of goods no safeguard duty can be demanded. The identical issue has been considered in various judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GS Chatha Rice Mills (supra) considering the issue of effect of notification date passed the following order: "154. Reliance placed on the judgments Video Electronics Pvt. Ltds and Another v. State of Punjab and Another; [1990 (3) SCC 87], Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another v. Status Spinning Mills Limited and Another; [2008 (7) SCC 353] of this Court, taking the view that the Schedule to an act is a part of the act and therefore an amendment to the Schedule by virtue of such a notification is an amendment to the Act itself and therefore, the notification issued under Section 8A of the Tariff Act partakes the character of legislation, is clearly untenable, if it is intended to convey that the notification issued under Section 8A of the Tariff Act is made by the legislature itself. By its very nature, delegated l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rates specified in the exemption notification dated 1-3-2018, even though the entry inwards was granted to the vessel on 5-3-2018 and the said exemption notification dated 1-3-2018 was published in the Official Gazette only on 6-3-2018, after it was digitally signed. The exemption notification came into effect only on 6-3-2018, on which date it was published in the Official Gazette after it was digitally signed for e-publication. The Commissioner (Appeals), was also not justified in distinguishing the cases cited by the appellant only for the reason that an amendment had been made in Section 25(4) of the Customs Act in 2016." The issue of date of effect of notification has been considered by Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Faqir Chand (supra) wherein following has been observed: "10. We are, therefore, of the considered view that both the notifications issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act and Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act stand on similar footings for being delegated legislation for not being an Act or Regulation as has defined in the General Clauses Act, for which fraction of time could have been ignored and Section 5(3) of the General....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in Para 9 of this order and second, but nevertheless, significant reason for non-acceptance of the views of Commissioner (Appeals) is that Section 25 clause 1 starts with the wordings that the Central Government if satisfied and found it necessary in the public interest can exempt certain conditions for clearance of goods by notification in the official gazette in respect of notified goods of specified description from whole or part of Customs duty leviable, therefore, notification in the official gazette is the only way through which Central Government can exempt notified goods from levy of Customs duty and the same can never be done otherwise like preparing an office note and made effective upon being dispatched for publication in the official gazette, apart from the fact that sub-section (4) prescribing for coming into force of such notification to the date of its issue is conditional/subjected to "provisions otherwise provided" and since such provision is expressively provided in Section 25(1), Section 25(4) can't operate/applied in exclusion of provision contained in Section 25(1) prescribing publication of notification in the official gazette as a pre-condition for exemptio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n three months of receipt of this order." The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court also dealing with the issue about the effect of the date of Notification in case of Param Industries (supra), observed as under: "12. In the facts of the given case, it is clearly averred in the petitions that notification dated 3-8-2001 was not gazetted on the same day. 4th and 5th were public holidays and hence notification must have been published in the Gazette only after 6-8-2001 and petitioners' have also produced copy of fax message received at Cochin Excise Office which was received at 11:44 p.m. on 3-8-2001 and at that time notification was yet to be published in the Gazette as copy contains endorsement "to be published in Gazette". In the statement of objections filed by respondents it is stated that notification was issued on 3-8-2001 and published on the same day in Gazette of India and displayed on notice board of Department of Publications as admitted in the petition. The petitioners have not admitted publication of notification in Gazette on 3-8-2001 and it is specifically averred that publication in the Gazette was subsequent to 6-8-2001. Further, the petitioners have produced cop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt for publication in the Official Gazette. The same analogy will apply to the instant case. As per the intention of the Legislature and the order of the Supreme Court a Notification can be said to be made on the same day only if it is published and offered for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi. Failure to do so could not make a notification effective from the date of its issue for publication. This provision added w.e.f. 1-6-1998 also shows that the date of publication in the Official Gazette and the date of its issue for publication in the Official Gazette can be different. In the present case the said notification was published in the Official Gazette on 6-8-2001 and not before 6-8-2001 and was offered for sale not before 6-8-2001. Therefore even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said Notification is to be effective w.e.f. 6-8-2001. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel has not been able to show that it was published on 3-8-2001 and they also offered this notification for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Board, New Delhi. In the present case, admittedly, second condition was not satisfied inasmuch as it was offered for sale only on 6-8-2001, as it was published on 3-8-2001 in late evening hours and 4/5-8-2001 were holidays. 4. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the High Court which is in confirmity with the law laid down by this court in 'Harla v. The State of Rajasthan' [1952 (1) SCR 110] wherein this court formulated the aforesaid principle in the following manner :- "The principle underlying this question has been judicially considered in England. For example, on a somewhat lower plane, it was held in Johnson v. Sargant that an Order of the Food Controller under the Beans, Peas and Pulse (Requisition) Order, 1917 does not become operative until it is made known to the public, and the difference between an Order of that kind and an Act of the British Parliament is stressed. The difference is obvious. Acts of the British Parliament are publicly enacted. The debates are open to the public and the Acts are passed by the accredited representatives of the people who in theory can be trusted to see that their constituents know what has been done.....