2013 (1) TMI 609 - HC - Central Excise

Court Upholds 15% Crane Duty Rate Decision

GARLICK ENGINEERING Versus ASSTT. COLLR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE. BOMBAY-III

The Court concluded that the corrected Bill, reflecting a 15% duty rate on cranes, was legally binding despite procedural irregularities. The Petitioner's ... Rate of ad valorem duty of central excise on cranes covered under the Heading No. 84.26 Sub-heading No. 8426 - 12% or 15% - difference in English & Hindi version of the Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha - no such specific order of the Hon’ble Speaker of rectification of the error - Held that:- The authoritative text which is published of the Bill passed by Lok Sabha is a corrected version which specifies the rate of duty as 15% ad valorem against the concerned sub-heading. The authoritative text of the Act which received the assent also contains the same rate. The note of the Joint Secretary shows that the proof copies of English and Hindi versions of the Bill forwarded by Ministry of Law to Lok Sabha contained rate of 15% ad valorem against the sub-heading 8246. Mistake occurred while printing the Bill by Lok Sabha Secretariat before introducing the same in the House. The only flaw is that while correcting the mistake which had crept in the English version of the Bill introduced before the Lok Sabha, there was no specific order of the Hon’ble Speaker obtained for accepting the error as patent error. As the Hindi version of the Bill presented before the Lok Sabha contained the correct rate of 15%. The printed version in English and Hindi of the Bills passed by Lok Sabha forwarded to Rajya Sabha contained the correct rate of 15%. The assent of the Hon’ble President of India has been received to the Bill which contains the rate of 15%. Failure to obtain sanction of the Hon’ble Speaker under Rule 95 of the Rules of Procedure in the facts of this case is thus, only a procedural defect. There is no illegality attached to it. At highest, there is an irregularity of the procedure. Therefore, bar of Article 122(1) of the Constitution of India will be squarely attracted in the present case. Direction to pay costs may be recalled - This request cannot be acceded to inasmuch as the orders passed by this Court from 13th July, 2006 onwards show that there was failure on the part of the Respondents to produce relevant documents. The correspondence on record shows that even no heed was paid to the correspondence made by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. Therefore, not inclined to revoke the said order of payment of costs - no merit in the challenge to the impugned 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.