https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220505 The ad valorem excise duty on cranes under sub-heading 8426 of Chapter 84 was 15%, because the authoritative English text of the Bill and the enacted Act matched the Hindi version and the corrected text passed to the Rajya Sabha. The 12% figure appearing in the printed English version introduced in the Lok Sabha was a printing mistake and did not alter the enacted rate. The omission to place the correction before the Speaker under Rule 95 was only a procedural irregularity, and Article 122 barred questioning parliamentary proceedings on that ground. The challenge failed, and the excise demand was sustained. en-us Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:23:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220505 The ad valorem excise duty on cranes under sub-heading 8426 of Chapter 84 was 15%, because the authoritative English text of the Bill and the enacted Act matched the Hindi version and the corrected text passed to the Rajya Sabha. The 12% figure appearing in the printed English version introduced in the Lok Sabha was a printing mistake and did not alter the enacted rate. The omission to place the correction before the Speaker under Rule 95 was only a procedural irregularity, and Article 122 barred questioning parliamentary proceedings on that ground. The challenge failed, and the excise demand was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220505