TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (2) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1996] 5 SCC 538 is also relevant. In our view it is appropriate that this appeal is to be heard by a larger Bench." Before referring to the said decisions, we would narrate a few facts involved in the matter. The respondent admittedly imported a consignment of green beans (pulses) weighing 505-505 M.T. vide Invoice No. 14/099, dated December 31, 1986. They have filed bill of entry for the same on February 5, 1987. The importer claimed clearance of the said goods free of duty on the basis of exemption Notification No. 129/76-Cus. dated August 2, 1976. However, it was pointed out that on February 4, 1987, the said notification was amended vide Notification No. 40/87-Cus., whereby basic duty at 25 per cent. was levied. As the duty was levied at 25 per cent. the importer filed Writ Petition No. 535 of 1987 in the High Court of Bombay contending, inter alia, that the said notification was not duly published and that it was not in force on the date. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, accepting the said contention on the basis of the Full Bench decision of the said court in the case of Apar (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 22 ELT 644, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as under : "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 whole or any part of duty of customs leviable thereon." On the basis of the aforesaid section, the court negatived the contention that until the notification was available in Bombay---and shown to be so available---the statutory rules or instrument would not become operative. The court relied on the three-judge Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George [1965] 1 SCR 123 : AIR 1965 SC 722 and also referred to the decision in B. K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka [1987] 1 SCC 658, and held thus : "In the present case indisputably the mode of publication prescribed by section 25(1) was complied with. The notification was published in the Official Gazette on February 13, 1986. As to the effect of the publication in the Official Gaze....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1985, till October 31, 1985. The case of the company was that the notification came into effect only from November 1, 1985, since it was made available to the public for sale on that date. Relying upon the decision in Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. [1998] 109 STC 376 (SC) ; [1998] 8 SCC 250, the court allowed the said appeal by holding that the notification can be said to have been duly "published" when it is made known to the public. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the aforequoted observations in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. [1998] 109 STC 376 (SC) ; [1998] 8 SCC 250 are directly in conflict with the law laid down by this court in Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India [1994] 5 SCC 198 and I. T. C. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1996] 5 SCC 538. We agree with the said submission. In our view, as noted; above, in Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India [1994] 5 SCC 198, the court directly dealt. with a similar contention and after relying upon the decision in the case of Mayer Hans George [1965] 1 SCR 123 ; AIR 1965 SC 722 rejected the same. That decision is followed in I. T. C. Limited ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 160, the court negatived the said contention by holding that in the first place the order of the minister dealt with by the Privy Council was never "published" since admittedly it was transmitted to the immigration official who kept it with himself. The court observed : "But in the case an hand, the notification by the Reserve Bank varying the scope of the exemption, was admittedly 'published' in the Official Gazette ---the usual mode of publication in India, and it was so published long before the respondent landed in Bombay. The question, therefore, is not whether it was published or not, for in truth it was published, but whether it is necessary that the publication should be proved to have been brought to the knowledge of the accused... Lastly, the order made by the Minister in the Singapore case, was one with respect to a single individual, not a general order, whereas what we have before us is a general rule applicable to every person, who passes through India. In the first case, it would be reasonable to expect that the proper method of acquainting a person with an order which he is directed to obey is to serve it on him, or so publish it that he would certainly know of it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icial Gazette. It therefore stands to reason that publication in the Official Gazette, viz., the Gazette of India is the ordinary method of bringing a rule or subordinate legislation to the notice of the persons concerned." From the aforesaid judgment it can be stated that it is established practice that the publication in the Official Gazette, that is, Gazette of India is the ordinary method of bringing a rule or subordinate legislation to the notice of the persons concerned. 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. It is the usual mode followed since years and there is no other mode prescribed under the present statute except by the amendment in the year 1998 by Bill No. 21 of 1998. Further, in New Tobacco Co.'s case [1998] 109 STC 376 (SC) ; [1998] 8 SCC 250, the court referred to the decision in Harla v. State of Rajasthan, [1952] SCR 110. In Harla's case [1952] SCR 110, the court referred to section 3 of the Jaipur Laws Act, 1923, which, inter alia, provided that the court of Jaipur State shall administer the law pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t notification dated February 4, 1987, withdrawing full exemption from the levy of customs duty was published on the same day. For this purpose, the original copy of t he notification dated February 4, 1987, published in the extraordinary Gazette on the said date has been produced. before us. The Gazette is admissible being the official record evidencing public affairs and the court is required to presume its contents as genuine under sections 35 and 38 read with section 81 of the Evidence Act, 1872, unless the contrary is proved. Hence, there is no substance in the contention that notification dated February 4, 1987, was not published in the Gazette on the same day. In our view, the said notification came into force on the same date. Lastly, at this, stage, we would mention that Parliament has added subsections (4) and (5) to section 25 of the Customs Act by Act No. 21 of 1998, with effect from June 1, 1998 which prescribe the method and mode of publication of the notification and the date on which it comes into force. Newly inserted sub-sections (4) and (5) to section 25 are as under : "(4) Every notification issued under sub-section (1) shall,--- (a) unless otherwise provided....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not removed from the aircraft except for the purpose of transshipment. On November 8, 1962, the Reserve Bank of India amended its earlier notification by prescribing the additional condition for exemption, viz., that the gold must be declared in the manifest of the aircraft as same-bottom cargo or transshipment cargo. This notification was published in the Government Gazette on November 24, 1962. The accused-respondent was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss plane which left Zurich on November 27, 1962. The plane landed at the airport in Bombay on November 28. The accused was found sitting in the plane carrying 34 kilos of gold bars on his person which was not declared in the "manifest" for transit. The accused was prosecuted and convicted for importing gold into India in contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, read with the notification. One of the pleas raised in the defence was that the accused could not have known of the notification published in the Gazette of India only on November 24, 1962 whereas he had left Zurich on November 27, 1962. N. Rajgopala Ayyangar J. speaking for the majority held that publication in India so as to b....