ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 16-03-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
I 
a 
H 
ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA. 
March 16, 1967 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, S, M. SIKRI AND C. A. VAIDIALINOAM, JJ.] 
C1hlrol Excls1 Act, 1. 4 and Cintra! Exe/st Rul11 1944 r, 9 and r. 9A-
Good1 re1nov1d from factory afttr pll)'mlnt of dury-Chan111 In rat• of 
duty-Crucial tlm1 /or chang1d ra11 to apply, wh1tla1r paytMlll of dury 
nr r1moval of 1ood1. 
The 1ppell1111 company curried on In the State of Orina the buslne" 
of manuf1cturln1 ind ielllng piper und board1. 
It held n l'c~nce In 
Porm L.4 under the Olntrlll Excl11 Act H/rucrlbed by the Central llxclH 
lllll11 .. 1944. The company'• !oelory 1n 
Ill praml1e1 ware demucllled 
under the 11111 R11l11. The F1ctor1 1riioy1.t the boneftt or 1 prlvMe r1:1w1y 
11dl111 Ill th• factory uu. In 1960 1 ntw aiding w11 con111i1cted out• 
1ld1 the orl1ln1I factory preml111; the comp1ny'1 req11ut to Iha 1!10111 
0111horltl11 10 amend 111 lfc1ne1 ao 11 to lneludo tho new r1ilwny 1ldi11t In 
the factory 1111 WH r1fu11d. On Pubnmy 27 and 28, 1961 the eomp1111y 
loaded aome w1ao111 of paper after 1lflotln1 cle1nnce ol 11me aoodll by 
11aymt11t of axoflt duty under r. 52 of the l!xclM Rlll11. The w1gon.1 
th111 pauld Into the h1nd1 of railway Admlnl1tratlon but 11 a pllot eniln• 
w11 not available they were ahunted Into the new 1ld:na. On Mllfcli I, 
1961 new r1111 of 11oll1 duty came Into foroe and tho Deputy S11p11rln· 
tmd111t of Ctntral !xcl11 demanded extra duty OD the wa1on1 loadild on 
February 27 and 2BL 1961 on the around that thuy wrre found In the 
faotory1,nm1 .. 1111 ~.45 a,m, oD March I, 1961. The comp1111y nlylna 
on r. l 
of the l!xol11 RulH 1ubmlt11d that the duty wu payable al Iha 
r111 In fom on th• date on which tho duty wu actulllly paid, 1n tba 
lll11rn1tlv1 It 1ubmlt1td that the 1ood1 havlnt bten clnnd an.cl remowd 
from the factory premll11 blfor1 t11t mldnlabt of l'tbruary 28, 1951, could 
not ht made llablt for tht tnh1natd duty which 011m1 Into force on Man:h 
I, 1961. The oonten1lon1 w111 not aoHpttd by the Otputy S11p1rl111tn, 
dtlll, H:ahar dtpll'lmtnllll 1uthorltl11 1110 reJeotod thtm. Th• company 
then ftlo;r 1n 1ppl'o1tlon for revl1lon b1.ftlr1 the Oovtrnment of India 
Thl1 &llO b1ln1 l'ljlCtod lh• oomp1ny IPPtAl1d by IPlllllAI luve to lhlt! 
Court, 
I HILD I (I I In tht OAll of m1111utao1u11d 1ood1, aooordlng 10 Ill• pro• 
v !lllhlu r, II, th1 payment of tho duty and the olar111oe of aooo1 m1y bl! 
1yno l'llllOll~ or !lie 111ymtnt may ht po1tpontd nlthOllAh th.e good1 m~y 
lit ramovld, In tho !&lier Hilt, tintlor lho 11aond p1rt Cit r. VA lbe arltlCAI 
I!.'!'' I b1oom11 th• rtmoval of tht aood1 from the laoto!')' or wat'lho\180; 
""' f th1 p1ym1n1 of du!Y 11 m1d1 btlOH lht r1mov1L then 1111d1r llw 
""I Pll'I of r, VA lht orllloal tlmt 11 lht p1ym1nt of d11iy, [2U CJ 
·• !.!!.~dbt 11111 that lht ftrat pan of r. 9A r1l1l18 10 urunanufaetur• 
... ...- an 
1111 1IOOllCI p&rl to m1nllf1orurte1 loodl· [212 Pl 
I (II) fn lht pmtnt 0111 lht payment of duty w11 1ynohronou1 with the 
e 14r1Dot of !lit l@llll1 hto111111 Iii• pit p1111 1111d1r r. 52 llllll only bo 
l11ued wfhon Ille IOOd8 b1v1 1011111lly bteti olwld for removlll. The pay· 
ment o duly Mil lbt removlll Of tb1 
IOOd1 had both betn efltOttd 
bttore lht oh1n11 In lht, r1t1 of duty, Th• rtoovery ot enb1nolltl duty 
fl'Olll lht 1pp11l1nt OOl!IPIDY Wll tlltl'lfOH. trrontou1. riu !), Ol 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1967] 3 S.C.R. 
(iii) The Excise authorities had themselves 
refused to recognise the 
new railway siding as part of the facto·ry and it could not therefore be 
said that the wagons being in the new siding must be treated as stiJI in 
the factory. [213 F] 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 30 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated June 7, 8, 1963 
of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance 
(Department 
of Revenue) in Central Excise Revision Application No. 463 of 
1963. 
B. Sen, Bishan Narain and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-Genera/, S. G. 
Patwardhan, 
R. N. 
Saththey, and S. P. Nayyar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. 
The appellant is a public limited company 
which carries on the business of manufacturing and selling whole-
sale, paper and boards at Brajrajnagar in the State of Orissa. The 
appellant company holds a licence under the Central Excise Act 
in Form L-4 prescribed by the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The 
appellant company's factory an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.