i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and anr.

exemption - central excise--notifications become effective only from date when copies are made available for sale to the public--central excise rules, 1944, rule 8--customs act (52 of 1962), section 25.;notifications issued under section 25 of the customs act, 1962 and under rule 8 of the central excise rules, 1944, to become effective and enforceable, required to be published and the publication meant not only printing it, but also making it known to the public in the sense of making available copies of the notification for sale to the public.;union of india v. asia tobacco co. ltd. [1992] 38 ecc 209 (mad) followed.;[accordingly, the high court quashed the orders of the collector (appeals) impugned in the writ petitions. the court also remitted the matters to the assistant collector to consider the question of granting refund in the light of section 11-b of the central excises and salt act, 1944.] - .....of notification, when it was made available and other details are given as below:--_____________________________________________________________________________w.p. no. notification involved with date date when madevailable to the public_____________________________________________________________________________4552/87 284/82 dated 30.11.82 08.12.92 [sic 82?]4553/87 - do - - do -4588/87 100/85 dated 25.03.85 15.04.854589/87 201/85 dated 02.09.85 19.09.85_____________________________________________________________________________the case of the revenue was that it is entitled to enforce the notification from the date of notification notwithstanding the fact that the same was not available to the public. but that contention cannot be accepted in view of the above judgment of the division bench.2. mr. k. jayachandran, learned additional central government standing counsel however states that the revenue has taken up the matter to the supreme court, against the abovesaid division bench judgment. but as on date i am bound by the division bench judgment. accordingly, applying the ratio of the division bench judgment i hold that the orders impugned are liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed.3. however, on the question of granting refund, the matters will have to be remitted back to the assistant collector of concerned division, who will consider in the light of section 11-b of the central excise act and also in the light of the ratio laid down in the division bench judgment above referred to. the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. no costs.