MEHTA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On August 12, 1984 the petitioners imported Erythromycine Thiocinate and two bills of entries for home consumption were lodged on August 13, 1984. The Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 25 of the Customs Act, had issued exemption notification dated March 6, 1979 inter alia providing that the goods specified in the Table annexed to the notification when imported into India for the manufacture of penultimate drug intermediates or drugs will be exempted from payment of customs duty levied thereon in accordance with the rates set out in the notification. One of the items set out in the Table annexed to the notification is Tioc (Crude Ertyromycin/Erythromycin Thocynate). The petitioners sought benefit of the exemption notification and the goods were cleared after the custom authorities assessed the bills of entries.

(2.) Subsequently, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex realised that the duty was less charged as the benefit of the exemption notification dated March 6, 1979 was not available to the import effected after August 10, 1984. On August 10, 1984, the Government of India had published notification in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Customs Act modifying the earlier notification dated March 6, 1979. The modification prescribed that the exemption from payment of duty provided to item at Serial No. 9 was omitted. As mentioned hereinabove, Item No. 9 in the Table of notification dated March 6, 1979 is Thiocinate, the goods which were imported by the petitioners and cleared under two bills of entries. The Assistant Collector of Customs thereupon served notice upon the petitioners under Section 28 of the Act demanding duty of Rs. 5,27,529.80 and Rs. 2,60,190.95 in respect of the two bills of entries under which the goods were cleared. The petitioners gave reply and thereafter the Assistant Collector passed two orders both dated February 20, 1985 confirming the short levy notices. The two orders have given rise to the filing of the petition.

(3.) Shri Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, advanced two-fold submission to urge that the Assistant Collector was in error in confirming short levy notices. The first contention of the learned counsel was that the notification dated August 10, 1984 was not known to the petitioners as well as custom authorities at the time of clearance of the goods. It was urged that unless the notification was duly made known to the importers, it is not permissible to deprive the importers of the exemption granted by the earlier notification. It is not possible to accept the contention because it is now settled by decision of this Bench that the notification comes into effect as soon as the same is published in the official/Government Gazette. It is entirely unnecessary that the fact of publication of the notification should be made known to every importer. Once the notification is published in the Government Gazette, then every person is expected to know of the same. The grievance of Shri Mehta that the effect of notification dated August 10, 1984 was not known to the petitioner is therefore required to be turned down.