UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus M/S. GANESH DAS BHOJRAJ

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 1081 · Decided: 22-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

lJ~ON OF INDIA A"lD OTHERS 
v. 
M/S. GANESH DAS BHOJRAJ 
FEBRCARY 22, 2CCO 
[B.N. KIRPAL, M.R SHAH AND R.C. LAHOTI, ff] 
Customs Act, 1962:-Section 25-Notification---Publication--Require-
rnent of-Notification published only in Official Gazett~Held, sufficient 
notice to the public. 
A 
B 
c 
Respondent was an importer of Green Beans. It claimed exemption 
from custom duty on the article imported by it under Notification No. 
129/76-Cus. dated 2.8.1976. However, the authorities claimed that the said 
notificatio11 had been subsequently amended vi de Notification ~ o. 40/87-
Cus. dated 4.2.1987 and levied duty @ 25% on the article imported by the D 
respo11dent the respondent challenged the imposition of duty on the 
ground, inter alia, that the said notification of 1987, although published in 
the Gazette of India, was not available to the public at large and therefore 
was not in force on the relevant date. The writ filed by the respondent was 
allowed by the High Court. 
E 
The appellant filed appeal before this Court. A two Judges Bench of 
this Court was of the opinion that there appears to be a conflict in the 
ratio of the judgment of this Court in M/s. Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union 
of India and Ors., !1994) 5 SCC 198 and Collector of Central Excise v. New 
Tobacco Co. and Ors., [1998) 8 SCC 250. The matter was referred to a 
three Judges Bench in view of the conflicting judgments. 
Allowing the appeal, the three Judges Bench 
F 
HELD : 1. It is established practice that the publication in the G 
Official Gazette, that is, Gazette of India is the ordinary method of 
bringing a rule or subordinate legMation to the notice of the persons 
concerned. Individual service of a general notification on every member of 
the public is not required and the interested person ca':1 acquaint himself 
with the contents of the notification published in the gazette. [1089-F] 
H 
1081 
1082 
SUPRhME COURT REPORTS 
(2000) l S.C.R. 
A 
2.1. 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 pub-
lication, such a mode of publication may be sullicient, if reasonable. 
[1090-D] 
B 
2.2. The method and mode provided for grant of exemption or 
withdrawal of exemption is issuance of notification in the Official Gazette. 
For bringing a notification into operation, the only requirement of Section 
25 of the Customs Act, 1962 is its publication in the Official Gazette and 
no further publication is contemplated. The notification under Section 25 
C 
of the Customs Act, 1962 would come into operation as soon as it is 
published in the Gazette of India i.e. the date of publication of the Gazette. 
Apart from the prescribed requirement under Section 25 of the Customs 
Act, 1962 the usual mode of bringing into operation a notification followed 
since years in this country is its publication in the Official Gazette and 
D there is no reason to depart from the same by laying down additional 
requirement. Hence, the decision rendered in Mis. Pankaj Jain Agencies v. 
Union of India and Ors., [1994) 5 SCC 198 represents the correct exposi-
tion of law on the subject. The decision rendered in Collector of Central 
Excise v. New Tobacco Co. and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 250 does not lay down 
the cor~ct law. [1087-C-E] 
E 
M/s. Pankaj Jain Agencies v. U11io11 of fl!dia a11d Ors., [1994) 5 SCC 
198, affirmed. 
Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. and Ors., [1998] 8 SCC 
F 
250 and I. T. C. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, [1996) 5 SCC 
538, disapproved. 
Apar (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1985) 22 ELT 644; Union of 
India v. Apar (P) Ltd., [1999] 6 SCC 117; State of Maharashtra v. Mayer 
Hans George, [1965] l SCR 123; B.K. Srinivasan and Ors. v. State of 
G Kamataka and Ors., [1987) l SCC 658; Garware Nylons Ltd. v. Collector of 
Customs and Celltral Excise, Pu11e, [1998) 8 SCC 282 and Har/a v. State of 
Rajasthan, [1952) SCR 110, referred to. 
Lin Chin Aik ~. 17te Queen, (1963) AC 160 and Johnson v. Sargant & 
H Sons, (1918) 1 KB 101, referred to. 
U.O.I. v. G.D. BHOJRAJ ;sl-IAH, J.] 
1083 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6071 of A 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.6.95 of the Bombay High 
Cou1l in W.P. No. 535 of 1987. 
K.N. Bhat, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor Generals, B 
Hemant Sharma, V.K. Verma, M. Gaurishankar Murthi and P. Parmes-

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