Cce Vs. Pasupati

Cce vs Pasupati

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 10, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37329

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/37329
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj, M T K.C.
Decided On: Dec 10, 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Pasupati

Excerpt

1. in this appeal, which has been filed by the revenue against the impugned order in appeal, the issue relates to the effective date of applicability of the gazette notification regarding the enhancement of the rate of duty. the learned commissioner (appeals) has taken the view, by following the apex court judgment in the case of cce v. new tobacco co. ltd. 1998 (97) elt 388 that the date of applicability of the notification will not be the date of simple publication in the gazette, but the date when the gazette is made available to he public.but the learned commissioner (appeals) has lost sight of the fact that this judgment was later on disapproved and rather over-ruled by the apex court itself in the case of union of india v. ganesh das bhoraj 2000 (116) elt 431 wherein, the apex court has specifically ruled that notification would come into operation as soon as it is published in the gazette i.e. the date of publication of the gazette and no further publication is contemplated.2. in the instant case, the respondents imported the goods and cleared the same from warehouse on the date when the rate of duty was changed by issuance of the notification published in the gazette. the plea of the respondents that they are liable to pay the duty at the old rate as the gazette publication was not made available to them, in our view, cannot be accepted, in view of the law laid down by the apex court in the above said case. the enhanced rate of duty came into effect on 16.9.97, the date when it was published in the gazette. therefore, the appellant are liable to pay the differential duty of the disputed amount. the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) is set side and the order of the original authority is restored. the appeal of the revenue accordingly stands allowed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal, the issue relates to the effective date of applicability of the Gazette Notification regarding the enhancement of the rate of duty. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view, by following the apex court judgment in the case of CCE v. New Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1998 (97) ELT 388 that the date of applicability of the notification will not be the date of simple publication in the gazette, but the date when the gazette is made available to he public.

But the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has lost sight of the fact that this judgment was later on disapproved and rather over-ruled by the apex court itself in the case of Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhoraj 2000 (116) ELT 431 wherein, the apex court has specifically ruled that notification would come into operation as soon as it is published in the gazette i.e. the date of publication of the gazette and no further publication is contemplated.

2. In the instant case, the respondents imported the goods and cleared the same from warehouse on the date when the rate of duty was changed by issuance of the notification published in the gazette. The plea of the respondents that they are liable to pay the duty at the old rate as the gazette publication was not made available to them, in our view, cannot be accepted, in view of the law laid down by the apex court in the above said case. The enhanced rate of duty came into effect on 16.9.97, the date when it was published in the gazette. Therefore, the appellant are liable to pay the differential duty of the disputed amount. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set side and the order of the original authority is restored. The appeal of the Revenue accordingly stands allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Pasupati Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge P Bajaj, M T K.C.