COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE versus NEW TOBACCO CO.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 09-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
... 
·'1' 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE 
A 
v. 
NEW TOBACCO CO. 
JANUARY 9, 1998 
[S.C. AGRA WAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
B 
· Excise Law : 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 : Section 38. 
c 
Publication-Meaning of-Printing in official Gazette-Reid: 
Publication cannot be equated with mere printing-Publication means when 
it is made available to the public so that they can know about it-Unless 
the Gazette containing the notification is made available to the public, the 
notification cannot be said to have been duly published-Central Excise D 
Rules, 1944. 
Words and phrases: 
"Publish "-Meaning of-Jn the context of S.38 of the Central Excises 
and Salt Act, 1944. 
E 
The respondent company was engaged in manufacturing cigarettes. 
Since 1979, the respondent used to pay duty on cigarettes manufactured by 
it at the rate fixed by Central Excise Notification 1-3-1979, as amended from 
time to time. It was rescinded with effect from 30-11-1982 by Notification 
dated 30-11-1982, which prescribed new rates of duty. Between 30-11-.1982 F 
and 8-12-1982 the respondent paid duty at the rate fixed by the Notification 
dated 1-3-1979, as it did not know that a new Notification was issued on 
30-11-1982. As the respondent had paid duty at a lesser rate the Excise 
Authorities raised a demand on the respondent to pay the differential amount 
between the duty short paid and the duty which had become payable in terms G 
of the new Notification dated 30-11-1982. 
Being aggrieved the respondent preferred an appeal before the Customs, 
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and contended that the 
Notification dated 30-11-1982 was made available to the public on 8-11-1992 
_ and, therefore, duty at the enhanced rate could be lawfully demanded from H 
63 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] I S.C.R. 
A it only from 8-12-1982. The Tribunal held that publication as contemplated 
by Section 38 of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 and Rule 8 of the 
Central Exci;;e Rules, 1944 cannot be equated with mere printing and it is 
the availability of the printed material to the general public that constitutes 
the required publication and allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal. 
B 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the only requirement 
of Section 38 of the Act is that all the rules made and notifications issued 
under the Act shall be published in the official Gazette; that the publication 
in the official Gazette is the only statutory requirement; and since the 
Notification was dated 30-11-1982 and the Gazette in which it was printed 
C also bore the same date, i.e., 30-11-1982, therefore, that date should be 
regarded as the date of its publication . 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. 
Section 38 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 
D Provides that all the rules made and notifications issued under the Act, shall 
be published in the official Gazette. So, the requirement of Section 38 is 
publication of the rules and the notifications in the official Gazette. The. 
requirement. of publishing the notifications would connote that what is intended 
to give notice or information to the public can be treated as published only 
when it is made available to the public so that they can know about it. The 
E requirement of publishing the notification in the official Gazette, which is 
an official journal or a newspaper containing public notices and other 
prescribed m:itters, also indicates that the word 'publish' in Section 38 
should be so interpreted. [67 B-C; E-F)) 
F 
Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition, Legal 
Glossary: Legislative Department, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 
Affairs, Government of India, (1992) and Webster's Third New International 
Dictionary, referred to. 
2. Central Excise Notification can be said to have been published, 
G except when it is provided otherwise, when it is so issued as to make it known 
to the public. It would be a proper publication if it is published in such a 
manner that persons can, if they are so interested, acquaint themselves with 
its contents. If publication is through a Gazette then mere printing of it in 
the Gazette would not be enough. Unless the Gazette containing the notification 
is made available to the public, the notification cannot be said to have been 
H duly published. [71-E-F) 
r 
C.C.E. v. NEW TOBACCO CO. [NANA VA TI, J.] 
65 
Har/av. State of Rajasthan, 119521 SCR 110; State of Maharashtra v. A 
...--( 
Maver Hans

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.