1996 JTR(SC) 1331
1996 3 CCC(SC) 319 ; 1996 3 CurCC(SC) 319 ; 1996 86 ELT 477 ; 1996 8 JT 97 ; 1996 6 Scale 239 ; 1996 5 SCC 538 ; 1996 Supp5 SCR 214 ; 1996 6 Supreme 481
1996(6) Supreme 481
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
I.T.C. Limited -Appellant
versus
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 10379 of 1996
Decided on 26-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Joseph Vellopally, Sr. Advocate, Ravinder Narain, Ashok Sagar, Ms. Punita Singh and Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, Advocates for JBD & Co., Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
When on the very date of issue of notification there was a radio announcement about the changes brought about by these notifications and also a Press Release, there was no ground to admit the claim that there was a failure to make the law known.
Act Referred :CUSTOMS ACT : S.25
A) The Customs Act, specifically Section 25, provides the statutory framework governing the validity and enforcement of customs notifications and their alignment with public communication of legal changes. This case directly engages with the interpretation of such provisions, emphasizing that once a law is duly published through an official gazette, accompanied potentially by contemporaneous radio announcements or press releases, the onus shifts away from the authorities to prove individual notification, and the validity of the law is not contingent upon demonstrating such additional dissemination steps. The section reinforces the principle of constructive knowledge, rejecting contentions of non-notification or lack of enforceability when formal publication has occurred.
B) The key legal principles include the doctrine of constructive notice, the conclusive effect of official gazette publication, and the rejection of appeals based on alleged failure to publicize changes when alternative, credible modes of communication (such as radio announcements or press releases) exist. The court underscores that the Tribunal is empowered to reject appeals when the appellant's claims are inconsistent with established case law and the admitted facts.
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the rejection of their case by the Tribunal, despite the notification being published in the Official Gazette and being accompanied by contemporaneous radio announcements and a press release regarding the changes.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient to bring the law to the notice of the public, and the additional steps of radio announcements and press releases further negated any claim of lack of knowledge or operativeness, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues:
Whether the publication of a notification in the Official Gazette, supplemented by radio announcements and press releases, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of law under Section 25 of the Customs Act, rendering the contention of non-notification untenable.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the formal publication in the Official Gazette, coupled with contemporaneous public announcements, fulfills the legal requirement for making the law known, thereby rejecting the appellants challenge and affirming the Tribunal's decision.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
A) The Customs Act, specifically Section 25, provides the statutory framework governing the validity and enforcement of customs notifications and their alignment with public communication of legal changes. This case directly engages with the interpretation of such provisions, emphasizing that once a law is duly published through an official gazette, accompanied potentially by contemporaneous radio announcements or press releases, the onus shifts away from the authorities to prove individual notification, and the validity of the law is not contingent upon demonstrating such additional dissemination steps. The section reinforces the principle of constructive knowledge, rejecting contentions of non-notification or lack of enforceability when formal publication has occurred.
B) The key legal principles include the doctrine of constructive notice, the conclusive effect of official gazette publication, and the rejection of appeals based on alleged failure to publicize changes when alternative, credible modes of communication (such as radio announcements or press releases) exist. The court underscores that the Tribunal is empowered to reject appeals when the appellant's claims are inconsistent with established case law and the admitted facts.
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the rejection of their case by the Tribunal, despite the notification being published in the Official Gazette and being accompanied by contemporaneous radio announcements and a press release regarding the changes.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient to bring the law to the notice of the public, and the additional steps of radio announcements and press releases further negated any claim of lack of knowledge or operativeness, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues:
Whether the publication of a notification in the Official Gazette, supplemented by radio announcements and press releases, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of law under Section 25 of the Customs Act, rendering the contention of non-notification untenable.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the formal publication in the Official Gazette, coupled with contemporaneous public announcements, fulfills the legal requirement for making the law known, thereby rejecting the appellants challenge and affirming the Tribunal's decision.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
ORDER
The points raised in this appeal are covered squarely against the appellant by the decision of this Court in M/s. Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India and Others1, wherein it was emphatically stated as under:
"We, therefore, see no substance in the contention that notwithstanding 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 elements of operativeness and enforceability. This contention of Shri Ganesh is unacceptable." (Para 18)
2. We may also observe that rejection by the Tribunal of the appellant s case even on the admitted position that on the very date of issue of 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 this appeal.
3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Appeal dimissed.
*******