ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 25-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR

Judgment (excerpt)

-, 
' 
~ 
• 
B 
~ 
' 
c 
I 
D 
F 
G 
H 
ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
February 25, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J., K.N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. c. SHAH AND 
S. M •. SJKRI, JJ.] 
Supreme Court Rules, 1950, Schedule III, Part II, Entry 2-Claim for 
refund of a definite amount of excise duty-Disallowed by Excise autho-
rities-Appeal to Supreme Court under Art. 136-Court fee payable. 
The appellant claimed refund of a specific amount as excess amount of 
excise duty recovered from it by assessing it under a wrong item, but the' 
excise authorities rejected the claim and 
the appellant's revision appli-
catron to the respondent was also dismissed. 
In its application for leave 
to appeal to this Court under Art. 13 6, the appellant challenged the order 
of the respondent on the assumption that the order under appeal had been 
passed by the respondent acting as a Tribunal, and reiterated its claim for 
the specified amount. The appellant contended that only fixed court fee 
of Rs. 250 was payable because it was not poosible to estimate at a money 
value the subject matter in dispute and not fee on an ad valorem basis 
at the rate prescribet! in Entry 2 in Schedule III, Part II of the Supreme 
Court Rules. 
HELD : The claim made by the appellant was for a definite, ascer-
tained amount and thereiore it is not a case where it is not possible to 
estimate at a money value the subject matter in dispute. 
Nor can it be 
said that if the appeal before this Court succeeds, it would still be neces-
sary for the appellant to take any further steps to recover the amount of 
refund, because. this Court can direct the appropriate authorities to grant 
the refund. Therefore, the appellant should pay court fee as prescribed 
by Entry 2 in Part II of Schedule III of the Supreme Court Rules, on an 
ad valorem basis. 
[661 G-H; 662 E, Fl 
Order in Civil Appeal No. 212 of 1956, explained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 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. 720-725 of 1963. 
A. K. Sen, B. P. Maheshwari and M. S. Narasimhan, for the 
Appellant. 
N. S. Blndra and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar, C. J, What is the appropriate amount of 
court-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. 
The appellant carries on the business of manu!acturing and 
Selling paper and paper board, and is registered as such under the 
657 
658 
SUPUKB OOUJ.T 
llEPOl.1'8 
(1966] 3 S.C.R. 
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (No. I of 1944) 
(hercinaft~'I' 
called 'the Act'). 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 appellant's ware-house. Among 
various kinds of paper which the appellant manufactures and sells, 
are included 'Packing and Wrapping' and 'Printing and Writing 
Paper'. The aforesaid 'Printing and Writing Paper' is of varioui; 
varieties and it includes Machine Glazed Poster popularly known 
as M.G. Posters. 
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., 0 · 22 P. per kilogram. Th.z duty under item 17(4) was, however, 
enhanced by the Finance Act of 1961 and increased to 0·35 P. per 
kilogram from the !st March, 1961. About six months after the 
enhanced duty came into force, the Excise authorities decided that 
the M.G. Poster manufactured by the appellant should be charged 
under item 17{4) and demand notices were issued accordingly for 
the different months during which the said paper was manufactured. 
In consequence of this demand, a total sum of Rs. 2,79,175-27 P. 
was collected from the appellant as difference in the duty leviable for 
the assessment periods covered by the several appeals which are 
pending in this Court and with which we are concerned in the 
present proceedings. 
As a result of these 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.