9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not there in the N/N. 12/2012-C.E. The appellants have built their case on the Budget Changes, 2012-2013 and on the letter of Joint Secretary, TRU. However, the N/N. 12/2012-C.E. does not reflect the tariff entry of the appellants product at Sl.No.48, which gives exemption to the products under tariff heading 2403 1990. It is also an admitted fact that no representation of any kind was made by the appellants to the Government during the intervening period and that N/N. 12/2014-C.E. does not expressly mention that it is clarificatory in nature. On being asked, the appellants have not been able to show anything to substantiate that N/N. 12/2014-C.E. was clarificatory in nature. Benefit of N/N. 12/2014-C.E. cannot be claimed retrospectively and is held to be prospective in nature. Hence, demand and the interest thereon are upheld. As for the penalty, the N/N. 12/2012-C.E. is clear and unambiguous and hence it cannot be said that there was a problem in interpreting the notification - it was a clear case of misuse of notification for which penalty has been rightly imposed in all the orders. Appeal dismissed - decided against asseessee. - Appeal Nos. E/75617/2016 - Order N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 19 to ₹ 21 per thousand. The existing exemption available to hand-rolled bidis for clearances up to 20 lakh bidis per annum is being retained. He also referred to the Budget Changes, 2012-2013 and drew attention to the paragraph 24.4 thereof, which is reproduced below:- The rate of excise duty on Biris is increased by ₹ 2 per thousand for both handmade and machine made biris.[S.No.47 48 of Notification No.12/2012-C.E., dated the 17th March 2012 refers]. He further referred to the letter of the Joint Secretary, TRU dated 16.03.2012 which reads as under:- 4.5. In the case of bidis, the rates of basic excise duty for both hand-rolled and machine-rolled bidis have been increased by ₹ 2 per thousand. Thus, BED on hand-rolled bidis (tariff item 2403 19 21) has gone up from ₹ 8 to ₹ 10 per thousand sticks and that on machine-rolled bidis (tafiff item 2403 1929) from ₹ 19 to ₹ 21 per thousand. [Notification No.12/2012-C.E. dated 17th March, 2012 may be seen for details] He further stated that the appellant had all along enjoyed the benefit of concessional rate of duty and their product was never chargeble to tarif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication No.12/2014-C.E. does not expressly mention that it is clarificatory in nature. On being asked, the appellants have not been able to show anything to substantiate that Notification No.12/2014-C.E. was clarificatory in nature. 6. Given the above background, we find that Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly analysed the judgment of Apex Court in the case of WPIL Ltd., relied upon by the appellants, in paragraph 7.1, which is reproduced below: 7.1. I find that the Apex Court in the case of WPIL Ltd. has observed that in view of demand being made by the Department, a representation was made by the industries and on being satisfied, the Central Government issued a clarificatory Notification No.95/94 on April, 25, 1994. The Hon ble Tribunal in the case of NEPC India Ltd. [2008(226) E.L.T. 669(Tri.-Chennai)] has held as under: In WPIL case, the Hon ble Supreme Court found that the Central Government had rescinded a large number of exemption Notifications and issued a consolidated Notification (No.46/94-C.E.) on 1st March, 1994, wherein power driven pumps were shown as an exempted item, but parts of PD pumps were not so shown. In one of the rescinded Notifications, par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined in the Finance Act after it is legislated upon by Parliament. Budgetary proposals constitute legislative material antecedent to the enactment of law. The rates of tax, are those which are prescribed by legislation, once it is enacted by Parliament. Once Parliament has duly legislated, and a rate of duty is prescribed in relation to a particular tariff heading that constitutes the authoritative expression of the legislative will of Parliament. The Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review cannot go behind the law as enacted by Parliament. It is the law as enacted, which gives expression to legislative will and it is the law as enacted which prescribes the rate of tax which Parliament has duly imposed. Consequently, as a mater of first principle, it would be impermissible for the Court to undertake the exercise of entering upon a scrutiny of the correctness of the collective expression of legislative will which finds expression in the legislation as adopted by the Parliament. The Court cannot undertake a scrutiny of whether there was an error on the part of the Parliament in legislating to provide a particular rate of duty. It is to be noted that no challenge to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n involves various considerations and criteria. Every legislation is done with the object of public good as said by Jeremy Bentham. Taxation is an unilateral decision of the Parliament and it is the exercise of the sovereign power. The financial proposals put forth by the Finance Minister reflects the governmental view for raising revenue to meet the expenditure for the financial year and it is the financial policy of the Central Government. The Finance Minister s speech only highlights the more important proposals of the budget. Those are not the enactments by the Parliament. The law as enacted is what is contained in the Finance Act. After it is legislated upon by the Parliament and a rate of duty that is prescribed in relation to a particular Tariff Head that constitutes the authoritative expression of the legislative will of Parliament. Now in the present facts of the case, as per the finance bill, the legislative will of the Parliament is that for the commodities falling under Tariff Head 2208.10, the tariff is ₹ 300/- per litre or 400% whichever is higher. Even assuming that the amount of tax is excessive, in the matters of taxation laws, the Court permits greater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
