Page 204 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

114 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

[Order per : Ramesh Nair, Member (J)]. - The brief facts of the case are
that the appellant had imported 1166.011 Mts. of Crude Palm Oil (CTH 1511 10
00) for which Nine different Bills of Entry all dated 1-8-2003 were filed under
DEPB and claimed benefit of 65% concessional rate of duty under Notification
No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. The said notification was amended vide Noti-
fication No. 67/2003, dated 30-4-2003 whereby the duty rate was specified @
70%. Accordingly, AC, Customs, Kandla denied the benefit of Notification No.
21/2002 as amended by 67/2003. In terms of Notification No. 120/2003, dated 1-
8-2003 which was disputed by the appellant on the ground that the said notifica-
tion was not published on the day when they filed the Bill of Entry. The Adjudi-
cating Authority referred to Office Memorandum No. 336/4/2003-TRU, dated 9-
10-2003 issued by Ministry of Finance which revealed that the actual date of pub-
lication of Notification No. 120/2003 (supra) as 1-8-2003 and by relying upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Das Raj Bhojraj - 2000
(116) E.L.T. 431 (S.C.), wherein it was held that notification issued under Section
25 of the Customs Act, would come into operation as soon as it is published in
the Gazette of India that is the date of publication of Gazette and no further pub-
lication is contemplated, Ordered final assessment directing the appellants to pay
differential duty of Rs. 42,24,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-
Original, appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which came to
be dismissed and the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was main-
tained. Therefore, the present appeal.
2. Shri Rajesh Rawal, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the ap-
pellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority as well as Commissioner (Ap-
peals) decided the matter on the basis of unamended Section 25(4) and judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj -
2000 (116) E.L.T. 431 (S.C.). He submits that contrary to the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Das Bhojraj, after considering the same the
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Param Industries Ltd. v. Union of
India - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 3 (Kar.) clearly held that the notification comes into effect
on the day it is published and offered for sale. He submits that the information
gathered regarding the date of Offer for Sale of the notification, it was revealed
that though the Notification No. 120/2003-Cus. was published on 1-8-2003 but
the same was put on sale to the general public on 4-8-2003. This has been replied
vide Letter dated 7th August, 2015 in reply to RTI query. It is his submission that
as per the amended Section 25(4)(a)(b) coupled with Karnataka High Court in the
case of M/s. Param industries Ltd. it was clear that the effect of Notification is from
4-8-2003 and not from 1-8-2003. He submits that the decision of the Hon’ble Su-
preme Court in the case of Ganesh Das Bhojraj is not applicable in the facts of the
present case for the reason that at the relevant date amended Section 25(4) was in
force, dealing with the same judgment of Param Industries Ltd. (supra) was giv-
en. This decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has been affirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at Union of India v. Param Industries Ltd. - 2015
(321) E.L.T. 192 (S.C.).
2.1 He further submits that on the identical issue the Hon’ble Gujarat
High Court in the case of M.D. Overseas Ltd. v. Union of India - 2017 (353) E.L.T. 12
(Guj.), after considering the judgment of Param Industries Ltd. given by Karnataka
High Court and affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and also discussing the ra-
tio of Ganesh Das Bhojraj (supra) held that as per Section 25(4)(a)(b) of Customs
Act, 1962, the date of coming into force of notification is when notification issued,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  204