A further claim was made by the appellant that the excise authorities should be directed to assess the poster paper under item 17 3 and number under item 17 4 .
Against the said decision, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Collector of Central Excise under s. 35 of the Act.
As a result of these demands, the appellant had to pay the duty which it did under protest.
720 725 of 1963.
The appellant urged that the duty on the goods in question was chargeable under item 17 3 and number under item 17 4 of the Tariff Rules.
The excess amount of which refund was thus claimed came to Rs.
659 664 of 1965.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 5, 1963 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi in Central Excise Revision Applications Nos.
In its appeal memo to the Collector, the appellant had claimed that the order under appeal should be revoked and Rs.
The aforesaid Printing and Writing Paper is of various varieties and it includes Machine Glazed Poster popularly known as M.G. Posters.
Thereafter, it claimed a refund under Rule II of the Rules framed under the Act.
K. Sen, B. P. Maheshwari and M. S. Narasimhan, for the Appellant.
Among various kinds of paper which the appellant manufactures and sells, are included Packing and Wrapping and Printing and Writing Paper.
S. Bindra and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent.
In companysequence of this demand, a total sum of Rs.
One of the reliefs claimed by the appellant in its petitions of appeal was that the Excise authorities be directed to assess the poster paper under item 17 3 and number under item 17 4 and to make a direction as to the refund of the excess amount recovered from the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The appellant carries on the business of manufacturing and selling paper and paper board, and is registered as such under the 657 Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 No.
It is against this revisional order that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave under Art.
Prior to the Finance Act of 1961, the printing and writing paper was classified and charged under item 17 3 of the Schedule to the Act and the wrapping paper was charged under item 17 4 of the Schedule even so, the duty on both the items was the same, viz.,
The said appeal was rejected by the Collector of Customs on 28 7 1962.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C. J. What is the appropriate amount of companyrt fees payable on the petition of appeal filed by the appellant, Orient Paper Mills Ltd., under Schedule III, Part II of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950, that is the short question of law which arises for our decision in this matter.
22 P. per kilogram.
The respondent, the Union of India, charges excise duty under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act on the paper manufactured by the appellant before the manufactured goods are cleared out of the appellants ware house.
About six months after the enhanced duty came into force, the Excise authorities decided that the G. Poster manufactured by the appellant should be charged under item 17 4 and demand numberices were issued accordingly for the different months during which the said paper was manufactured.
The duty under item 17 4 was, however, enhanced by the Finance Act of 1961 and increased to 0 35 P. per kilogram from the 1st March, 1961.
I of 1944 hereinafter called the Act .
This Rule prescribes a period of three months within which a claim for refund can be made in companysequence of the sum having been paid through inadvertance, error or misconstruction.
84,928 84 P. This application was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Cuttack Division, Cuttack.
2,79,175 27 P. was companylected from the appellant as difference in the duty leviable for the assessment periods companyered by the several appeals which are pending in this Court and with which we are companycerned in the present proceedings.
84,928 84 P. should be refunded to it.
