I T C LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner company manufactures inter alia Cigarettes. The registered office of the petitioner company is in Calcutta. The petitioner has a factory at Basdeopur District Mungher in the State of Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the said factory). The petitioner manufactures cigarettes at the said factory. For the purpose of marketing it's cigarettes, the petitioner makes shells, slides and Hingelids. The question to be determined in this petition is whether such shells, slides and hingelids are covered by Item 17(4) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By Notification No. 66/82, dated 28-2-1982 all items under Tariff Item 17(4) of the First Schedule to the said Act were exempted from payment of excise duty except printed boxes and printed cartons (including flattened or folded printed boxes and flattened or folded printed cartons whether in assembled or unassembled condition). On 18-3-1982 the petitioner submitted a classification list under protest. It is the petitioner's case that the said shells, slides and hingelids come within the exempted category of Tariff Item 17(4). In any event it is contended that if it is held that the said shells, slides and hingelids are excisable, then the petitioner was entitled to credit in respect thereof when the petitioner paid duty on cigarettes.

(2.) On 16-4-1982 an order was passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna directing that the Shells, Slides and Hingelids came under the excepted category of Tariff Item 17(4) of the First Schedule to the Act and was dutiable as such. The petitioner company preferred an appeal from the order dated 16-4-1982 before the Appellate Collector of Central Extise, Calcutta [now designated Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Calcutta] being the respondent No. 5 herein. By an order dated 11-3-1983 the respondent No. 5 allowed the petitioner Company's appeal and set aside the order dated 16-4-1982. By the order dated 11-3-1983 the respondent No. 5 directed granting of consequential relief within two months from the date of the issuance of the order. This order was communicated to the petitioner company at its office in Calcutta.

(3.) The petitioner's grievance is two-fold that in spite of the order dated 11-3-1983(i) the Excise Authorities in Bihar were not refunding the excise duty paid by the petitioner in respect of the shells, slides and hingelids in terms of the order but, on the other hand (ii) were preventing the petitioner from removing the shells, slides and hingelids from the said factory without paying excise duty on the same.