A
I.T.C. LIMITED
v.
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY
AUGUST 26, 1996
B
[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
G
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."
(Para 18)
H
We may also observe that rejection by the Tribunal of the appellant's
214
I.T.C. LID .. v. COLLECTOROFCEN1RALEXCISE
215
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.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
B
T.N.A.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex