2025 (11) TMI 1283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd duty paid at US $ 440 per 10 grams in terms of the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 under Sl. No.323. Later, the said Notification was amended vide Notification No. 57/2013 Cus. dated 31.05.2013 and accordingly the appellant was liable to pay differential duty of Rs.9,73,999/- which was confirmed with applicable interest and various penalties were imposed. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is in appeal before us. 2. The Learned Counsel submitted that the original Notification based on which duty was paid was amended vide Notification No. 57/2013-Cus. (N.T.) dated 31.05.2013 which was available only at a later date, hence, the question of payment of differential duty does not arise since the goods were cleared on app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2013 was published in the Gazette on 31.05.2013 and offered for sale by publishing on the Department website on 31.05.2013 itself which is not in dispute. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the differential duty. 4. The reliance placed on the decisions in the case of The Bank of Nova Scotia Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad (supra) is also not relevant since the appellant in this case has not disputed the fact that the Notification was available on the Department's website on 31.05.2013. The Revenue also relied on the decision in the case of ITC Ltd Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1996 (86) ELT 477 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court held that non-availability of the Gazette on the date of issue of the Notificati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Writ Misc. Petition Nos. 22829 to 22831/2001 and connected matters is concerned, it is not helpful as it is an interim order. Further, in that case the learned single Judge prima facie came to the conclusion that "the relevant date for the assessment of the duty was only 5-8-2001, when admittedly the date on which the entry inwards of the vessel was 5-8-2001". However, in other cases interim order was granted with some conditions. So the notification is liable to be set aside. We are constrained to hold that contrary is proved and presumption of publication on 3-82001 is not available to the respondents in this case and notification dated 3-8-2001 did not acquire the elements of operative-ness and enforceability on 3-8-2001 and hence additi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act, will not detract the Court from ascertaining as to who is the author of the exercise of the legislative power, namely, whether it is an exercise of power by the legislature or by its delegate. Upon answer to the question, namely, that the author of the legislative effort is the executive, the question would necessarily arise as to whether there is publication. In the scheme of the Customs Act, the Tariff Act and the 2018 Regulations, the time at which the notification under Section 8A is published would indeed have relevance as already found." 7. Following the above judgments, the Tribunal in the case of The Bank of Nova Scotia Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad: Final Order No. A/30324/2024 dated 25.11.2025 held as ....