I.T.C. LIMITED versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY on 26 August 1996

A

I.T.C. LIMITED

v.

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

B

AUGUST 26, 1996

[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

Notification-Operativeness and enforceability-Publication in Official Gazette-Changes brought about by Notification also announced through radio-Press release also mad~-Appellant's claim that there was failure to C make the law knowit-Held not maintainable.

Mis. Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India and Ors., [1994) 5 SCC 198, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10379 of D 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.96 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Wctst Regional Bench, Bombay in P.O. No. 1260196-WRB in Appeal No. E.D. (Bom)-298of1986.

E

Joseph Vellopally, Ravincler Narain, Ashok Sagar, Ms. Punita Singh and Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar for JBD & Co. for the Appellants.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The points raised in this appeal are covered squarely against the F appellant by the decision of this Court in Mis. Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India and Others, [1994] 5 SCC 198, wherein it was emphatically stated as under :

'We, therefore, se(~ no substance in the contention that not-withstanding the publication in the Official Gazette there was yet a failure to make the law known and that, therefore, the notification did not acquire the eiements of operativeness and enforceability. This contention of Shri Ganesh is unacceptable."

G

(Para 18)

H

We may also observe that rejection by the Tribunal of the appellant's

I.T.C. LID .. v. COLLECTOROFCEN1RALEXCISE

case. even on the admitted position that on the very date of issue of A notification there was a radio announcement about the changes brought about by these notifications; and also a press release is another ground to justify rejection of the appellant's claim. Accordingly, there is no ground to admit the appeal.

B

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.