Case: Uoi  Vs. M/S Ganesh Das Bhojraj

2. Respondent admittedly imported a consignment of Green Beans (Pulses) weighing 505-505 M.T. vide Invoice No. 1499 dated 31.12.1986. They have filed bill of entry for the same on 5.2.1987. The importer claimed clearance of the said goods free of duty on the basis of Exemption Notification No. 12976-Cus dated 2.8.1976. However, it was pointed out that on 4.2.1987 the said notification was amended vide Notification No. 4087-Cus, whereby basic duty @ 25% was levied. As the duty was levied @ 25%, importer filed Writ Petition No. 535 of 1987 in the High Court of Bombay contending inter alia that the said notification was not duly published and that it was not in force on the date. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay accepting the said contention on the basis of Full Bench decision of the said Court in the case of Apar (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 1985(22) ELT 644 allowed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal by the State.

Reasoning:
From the aforesaid judgment it can be stated that it is establish practice that the publication in the official gazette, that is, Gazette of India ordinary method of bringing a rule or subordinate legislation to the notice the persons concerned. Individual service of a general notification on every member of the public is not required and the interested person can acquire himself with the contents of the notification published in the gazette. It is the usual mode followed since years and there is no other mode prescribed under the present statute except by the amendment in the year 1998 by Bill No. 21 of 1998.15. Further, in New Tabacco Co.s case (supra) the Court referred to the decision in Harla v. State of Rajasthan, 1952 SCR 110. In Harlas case the Court referred to Section 3 of Jaipur Laws Act, 1923 which inter alia provided that the Court of Jaipur State shall administer the law passed from time to time by the State and published in the official gazette. In that case, it was admitted that Jaipur Opium Act was never published in the Gazette and, therefore, the Court held that in the absence of some specific law or custom to the contrary, a mere resolution of a Council of Ministers in the Jaipur State without further publication or promulgation would not be sufficient to make a law operative. The Court also observedWe take it that if these Proclamations are not published strictly in accordance with the rules so drawn up, they will not be valid law ..... The mode of publication can vary; what is a good method in one country may not necessarily be the best in another. But reasonable publication of some sort there must be.Further, in the case of New Tabacco Co. (supra), the Court relied on the decision in B.K. Srinivasan (supra). In that case (in para 15) after considering various contentions, the Court specifically held that where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable.17. From the aforesaid observations, it is plain and clear that the decision in B.K. Srivasan (supra) also reiterates that the notification will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the official gazette. We also agree with the reasons recorded in Mayer Hans George (supra) and hold that notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act would come into operation as soon as it is published in the Official Gazette and no further publication is required. Hence, the decision rendered in Pankaj Jain Agencies (supra) represents the correct exposition of law on the subject. The decision rendered in New Tabucco Co. followed in Garware Nylons Ltd. (supra) does not lay down the correctthis purpose, original copy of the Notification dated 4.2.1987 published in theGazette on the said that has been produced before us. The Gazette is admissible being official record evidencing public affairs and the Court is required to presume its contents as genuine under Sections 35 and 38 read with Section 81 of the Evidence Act, unless contrary is proved. Hence, there is no substance in the contention that notification dated 4.2.1987 was not published in the Gazette on the same day. In our view, said notification came into force on the same date.19. Lastly, at this stage, we would mention that Parliament has added(4) and (5) to Section 25 of the Customs Act by Act No. 21 of 1998 w.e.f. 1.6.1998 which prescribe the method and mode of publication of the Notification and the date on which it comes into force.