2013 (1) TMI 609 - HC - Central Excise

Court Upholds 15% Crane Duty Rate Decision

The Court concluded that the corrected Bill, reflecting a 15% duty rate on cranes, was legally binding despite procedural irregularities. The Petitioner's ... Authoritative text of a Bill in English - language of Bills and Article 348 - parliamentary proceedings immunity under Article 122 - patent error and Rule 95 of the Rules of Procedure - validity of statute despite procedural irregularity - classification and ad valorem rate of dutyClassification and ad valorem rate of duty - authoritative text of a Bill in English - Whether the ad valorem rate of central excise leviable on cranes under sub-heading 8426 is 12% or 15% - HELD THAT: - The court examined the printed English and Hindi versions of the Bill as passed by Lok Sabha and the authoritative printed text forwarded to Rajya Sabha and submitted for presidential assent. The Joint Secretary's note and affidavit establish that a printing error caused the English version introduced in Lok Sabha to show 12% while the authoritative English text as passed (and the Hindi text) showed 15%, after correction by the Legislative Department. Article 348 makes the authoritative texts of Bills in English decisive. The corrected English text containing 15% was the text transmitted to Rajya Sabha, returned and received presidential assent. On this basis the court held that the authoritative text specifies 15% ad valorem duty and that the petitioner's claim to 12% cannot prevail. [Paras 10, 13, 16]The applicable ad valorem rate for cranes under sub-heading 8426 is 15%; the petitioner's claim to 12% is rejected.Patent error and Rule 95 of the Rules of Procedure - parliamentary proceedings immunity under Article 122 - validity of statute despite procedural irregularity - Whether the failure to place the Draftsman's correction of the printing error before the Speaker under Rule 95 vitiates the statute or permits judicial inquiry - HELD THAT: - The court treated the omission to bring the correction to the Speaker's notice as a procedural irregularity rather than an illegality. Article 122 bars questioning the validity of parliamentary proceedings on grounds of procedural irregularity. Authorities cited and discussed indicate that only an allegation of illegality (not mere irregularity) would permit judicial scrutiny. Here, the Hindi text and the authoritative printed English text both carried 15% and presidential assent was obtained; therefore the defect in seeking formal acceptance of a patent error under Rule 95 does not render the statute invalid. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 20]The omission under Rule 95 is a procedural irregularity; Article 122(1) bars judicial inquiry and the irregularity does not vitiate the statute or the rate of duty.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed. The authoritative text of the Act establishes a 15% ad valorem duty on cranes under sub-heading 8426; the procedural omission in not placing the correction before the Speaker is only an irregularity barred from judicial review by Article 122, and the amounts deposited may be withdrawn in accordance with the order. Issues Involved:1. Rate of ad valorem duty on cranes under Heading No. 84.26, Sub-heading No. 8426 of Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. Discrepancy between English and Hindi versions of the Bill regarding the rate of duty.3. Procedural irregularities in correcting the Bill before sending it to Rajya Sabha and obtaining Presidential assent.4. Applicability of Article 348 and Article 122 of the Constitution of India.5. Validity of proceedings in Parliament and the role of the Hon'ble Speaker.Detailed Analysis:1. Rate of Ad Valorem Duty on Cranes:The primary issue was determining the correct rate of ad valorem duty on cranes under Heading No. 84.26, Sub-heading No. 8426 of Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Petitioner claimed the rate was 12% ad valorem, while the Respondent argued it was 15% ad valorem.2. Discrepancy Between English and Hindi Versions of the Bill:The Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha had an inconsistency: the English version showed the rate as 12% ad valorem, whereas the Hindi version showed it as 15% ad valorem. The Bill passed by the Lok Sabha and sent to the Rajya Sabha contained the corrected rate of 15% in both versions.3. Procedural Irregularities:The Draftsman corrected the rate in the English version from 12% to 15% after the Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha but did not bring this correction to the notice of the Hon'ble Speaker, as required under Rule 95 of the Rules of Procedure. Despite this, the corrected Bill was sent to the Rajya Sabha and received Presidential assent.4. Applicability of Article 348 and Article 122:Article 348 mandates that the authoritative texts of all Bills introduced in Parliament must be in English. The authoritative English text of the Bill, as passed by the Lok Sabha and sent to the Rajya Sabha, showed the duty rate as 15%. Article 122 states that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament cannot be questioned on the grounds of procedural irregularity. The Court found that the procedural defect did not amount to illegality, thus invoking the bar under Article 122(1).5. Validity of Proceedings and Role of the Hon'ble Speaker:The Court noted that the failure to obtain the Hon'ble Speaker's specific order to correct the printing error was a procedural defect, not an illegality. The authoritative text, as published and assented to by the President, contained the 15% rate, which was deemed valid.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the Petitioner's claim of a 12% duty rate was invalid. The corrected Bill, showing a 15% duty rate, was legally binding despite the procedural irregularity. The Petition was rejected, and the first Respondent was entitled to withdraw the deposited amount with accrued interest. The Court also upheld the order for the Respondents to pay costs due to their failure to produce relevant documents promptly.