TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e manufacture of Portland Pozzolana Cement falling under sub-heading 25232930 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The product manufactured by the Appellant carries MRP of more than Rs.250/- per bag of 50 Kgs. Prior to budget, 2008, the said item attracted Central Excise Duty at the Tariff Rate of Rs.600 PMT. Audit issued a spot memo dated 26.08.08 was issued against the Appellant on the ground that from 01.03.2008 to 09.05.2008, they were required to pay tariff rate of duty of Rs.900/- per tonne instead of Rs.600/- per tonne. Accordingly, a show cause-cum-demand notice dated 20.03.2009 was issued against them on the ground that by virtue of declared provisions under the provisions of Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Bill for amendment in the First Schedule to the CETA, did not cover the cement. 4.2. The contention is that in the Finance Bill, 2008, the declaration under Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931(PCTA) was made with reference to clause 84 of the Bill, which related to the items figuring in Seventh Schedule existing at the material time. Therefore, the declaration made under PCTA has to be read with reference to clause 84 of the Seventh Schedule which existed at the material time and the same cannot be automatically applicable to the subsequent amendment. The contention is that the declaration under PCTA was made with reference to clause 84 whereas the amended bill did not propose for amendment of the First Schedule to the CETA with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matters specified in Article 110(1) shall not be introduced or moved except on the recommendation of the President. Therefore, the said Article uses two expressions, introduced and moved . The meaning of these two expressions came up for consideration before the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga & Co. reported in AIR 1969 SC 504. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1960 SC 51 and the judgement of Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Cochin Potteries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1965 Ker 18. 4.5. The contention is that the provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2008 and the date of enactment. The case of the Department is that the enhanced rate of duty would be applicable with effect from 29.04.2008 itself, on the ground of substitution of amendment in the 7th Schedule of the Finance Bill on 29.04.2008, which was enacted on 10.05.2008 by Section 89 by virtue of the 7th Schedule of the Finance Bill, 2008 and the declared Provisions under Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, vide clause 84 read with 7th Schedule of the Finance Bill, 2008. The case of the Appellant is that the declaration under PCTA was made with reference to clause 84 of the Bill relating to the items figuring in the 7th Schedule, which existed at the material time. In other words, the declaration made under PCTA has to be read with ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Taxes Act, 1931. 6.3. We find that during the course of debate on the Finance Bill, 2008, a proposal for amendment was made by the Hon ble Finance Minister to enhance the duty on cement to Rs.900/- PMT. The Finance Bill, 2008 was enacted on 29.04.2008. The enhancement was as per clause 89 of the 7th Schedule, which reads as under:- In the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, - (1) in Chapter 24, - (i) in tariff item 2402 20 10, for the entry in column (4), the entry Rs.659 per thousand shall be substituted; (ii) in tariff item 2402 20 20, for the entry in column (4), the entry Rs.1068 per thousand shall be substituted; (2) in Chapter 25,- (i) in tariff item 2523 10 00, for the entry in column (4), the entry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat any provision of the Bill relating to such imposition or increase shall have immediate effect under this Act. 6.6. Section 3 of the PCTA empowers the Government, where a Bill to be introduced on its behalf provides for imposition or increase of a duty of customs or excise , to insert in the Bill a declaration that any provision of the Bill relating to such imposition or increase shall have immediate effect under the Act . What is requisite is that by reason of the Bill the customs or excise statute is to be amended either to impose duty for the first time or, where it is already imposed, to increase it. By making the declaration under the said Act the imposition or increase becomes effective upon the introduction of the Bill. ....