CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to pass a brief order.

(2.) This petition was called out about half-an hour back. No counsel, no instructing advocate, no clerk, not even a peon on behalf of the respondents has appeared in the court room. There is also no affidavit in reply.

(3.) The orders that are impugned relate to the claim made by the petitioners for refund of excise duty, in appeal therefrom, and in revision therefrom. The claim is in respect of post-manufacturing expenses and post-manufacturing profits upon which excise duty was levied. The petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the Voltas case - 1977 E.L.T. (J 177) = AIR (1973) S.C. 225 before all the three authorities. All three authorities have found ways of getting over the decision which I have found unintelligible. There is no one before me on behalf of the respondents who can make them intelligible. It must follow, then that the petitioners application for refund of excise duty in excess of the manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit should have been allowed.