ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a limited company, has challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, two orders dated 11 -5 -1984 and 14 -5 -1984, whereby the approved price list and the approval of revised ground plan was cancelled respectively by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division -III, Baroda. The petitioner has further challenged consequential show cause notices dated 21 -5 -1984, 10 -8 -1984, 11 -10 -1984 and 29 -10 -1985.

(2.) THE petitioner company carries on business of manufacturing glassware and also carries on process of colour printing and decorating glassware. It appears that based on Trade Notice No. MP/24/80, dated 8 -2 -1980 which in terms was based on Tariff Advice 2/80, dated 4 -1 -1980 the petitioner company took up a stand that the activity of decorating glassware in a separate factory would not amount to manufacture and as such value in relation to the said process would not be includable for the purpose of computing of duty. Accordingly, the printing unit was separated from the main manufacturing unit pertaining to plain glassware and revised ground plan was placed before the authority on 18 -5 -1983. On 1 -6 -1983 the petitioner company obtained separate licence under The Factories Act, 1948 for the decorating unit. On 2 -6 -1983 the revised ground plan was approved by the authority and on 7 -7 -1983 the fresh price list was provisionally approved with effect from 3 -6 -1983. It appears that the authority carried out inquiry regarding fresh price list and finally approved the same on 7 -10 -1983.

(3.) MR . Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in light of the Apex Court's decision in case of Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd., 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 the case of the petitioner company was covered and in the said decision it has been specifically held that no duty or differential duty would be payable again in relation to printing and decoration done in the separate premises. Pointing out from the facts of the case which was before the Supreme Court it was submitted that the case of the petitioner was covered on all fours as the petitioner company also has separate unit operating since 1983 under separate factory license.