Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Garlick Engineering, a manufacturer of cranes, filed a writ petition challenging the rate of central excise duty applicable to cranes under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The cranes were classified under Heading 84.26, Subheading 8426. The petitioner contended that the rate should be 12% ad valorem as per the English version of the Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha, while the Hindi version showed 15% ad valorem. The Bill was passed without amendment by both Houses and received presidential assent on 18th January 1986. The gazetted Act showed the rate as 15% ad valorem. The petitioner filed classification lists showing 12% duty, but the Assistant Collector approved them at 15%. The petitioner sought a declaration that the correct rate is 12%. The court examined the discrepancy between the English and Hindi versions of the Bill. It held that the Bill as passed by Parliament and assented to by the President is the authoritative text. The gazetted Act, which is the official version, shows 15% ad valorem. Therefore, the rate of duty is 15% ad valorem. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the 15% rate.
Headnote
A) Central Excise - Rate of Duty - Interpretation of Statutes - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Heading 84.26, Subheading 8426 - Discrepancy between English and Hindi versions of the Bill introduced in Parliament - The Bill as passed by both Houses and assented to by the President showed 15% ad valorem in the gazetted Act - Held that the enacted statute prevails over any discrepancy in the Bill, and the rate of duty is 15% ad valorem (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
What is the rate of ad valorem duty of central excise leviable and payable on cranes covered under Heading No.84.26, Subheading No.8426 of Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985?
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The rate of duty on cranes under Heading 84.26, Subheading 8426 is 15% ad valorem as per the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Law Points
- Doctrine of harmonious construction
- Interpretation of statutes
- Legislative intent
- Enrolled bill rule
- Effect of discrepancy between language versions of a bill
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 57
WRIT PETITION NO.6157 OF 1987
A.S. Oka, Shrihari P. Davare
Shri M.N. Bhatkal, Senior Advocate with Shri P.V. Patankar for the petitioner; Shri A.S. Rao with Shri S.D. Bhosale for the Respondents
M/s. Garlick Engineering (An Enterprise of and owned by Empire Industries Limited)
1. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan Division II, Bombay III Collectorate; 2. The Union of India; 3. The Speaker, Lok Sabha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the rate of central excise duty on cranes.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the correct rate of duty on cranes under Subheading 8426 is 12% ad valorem and not 15%.
Filing Reason
Discrepancy between English and Hindi versions of the Bill introduced in Parliament regarding the rate of duty on cranes.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Collector approved classification lists at 15% ad valorem despite petitioner's claim of 12%.
Issues
What is the correct rate of ad valorem duty on cranes under Heading 84.26, Subheading 8426 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the English version of the Bill showed 12% ad valorem, and the Hindi version showing 15% was a mistake; the enacted Act should reflect the English version.
Respondents argued that the Bill as passed by Parliament and assented to by the President is the authoritative text, and the gazetted Act shows 15% ad valorem.
Ratio Decidendi
The enacted statute as gazetted is the authoritative version; any discrepancy in the Bill versions is resolved by the final Act passed by Parliament and assented to by the President.
Judgment Excerpts
The question which arises in this Petition is as under: 'What is the rate of advalorem duty of central excise leviable and payable on cranes which were covered under the Heading No.84.26, Subheading No.8426 of Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 ?'
The said Act of 1985 which was gazetted showed that the rate of duty against the subheading 8426 was 15% ad valorem.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed classification lists in March and April 1986 showing 12% duty; Assistant Collector approved at 15%. Petitioner filed writ petition in 1987. Heard on 18th July 2012, judgment pronounced on 31st July 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: Heading 84.26, Subheading 8426
- Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944: Tariff Item No.68
