ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 245 · Decided: 03-05-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
~' 
-.,,'.j 'l .. 
~\ 
''I 
i ·~ . 
• 
.. 
j 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ORIENT PAPER MILLS LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
May 3, 1968 
[J. M. SHELAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Quasi-Judicial 
Power-exercise of-necessity 
for deciding 
matters 
independently of dir.ections given by others. 
Appeals and 
Revisions-
1nanner in which quasi-judicial power to be exercised. 
Upto February, 1961 certain "printing and-writing paper" and "pack-
ing and wrapping paper" produced by the appellant Company were sub-
ject to exercise duty 'at the rate of 22 nP. per kilogram though the former 
was chargeable under Item 17(3) and the latter under Item 17(4) of the 
First Scheduie to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Finance 
Act of 1961 raised the1 excise duty payable under Item 17(4) to 35 nP. 
per kilogram with effect from March 1, 1968 and though for some months 
the Excise Officer continued to levy duty on certain "machine glazed 
paper" popularly known as "M.G. Poster paper" under Item 17(3) i.e. by 
regarding it as "printing and writing paper", subsequently the excise autho-
rities began to treat this paper as "packing and wrapping paper" and 
insisted on the appellant paying duty thereon under Item 17 ( 4). 
The 
appellant paid the duty at the rate claimed under protest and thereafter 
appfod for refund of the excess on the ground that the duty on that 
paper should have been levied under Item 17(3). The Assistant Collectdr 
rejected the claim. 
An appeal to the Cullector and a revision to the 
Central Government were also rejected. 
It was clear from the order of 
the Collector as well as from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 
Government that the appeal and the revision were, rejected on the ground 
that the question was covered by a di'rection issued by the Central Board 
of Revenue to tho effect that the paper in question was to be treated a& 
"packing and wrapping paper". 
On appeal, to this Court 
HELD :The direction given by the Board was invalid and had vitiated 
the proceedings before the Collector as well as the Government. 
The 
appeals must therefore be allowed and the orders of the Central Govern~ 
ment as \vell as the Collector set aside, and the proceedings- remitted to 
the Collector for deciding the question whether "M.G. Poster paper'' 
should be as·sessed as "printing and writing paper" or "packing or wrap~ 
ping paper" afresh. [253 A-CJ 
The question whether "M.G. Poster paper" is "printing and writing 
paper" or "packing and wrapping paper" is essentially a question of fact. 
That had to be docided by the authorities under the Act. 
The power 
exercised by the Collector and the Central Government was a quasi-judi~ 
cial power- that could not be controlled by the directions issued by the 
Board. 
No authority however high placed can control the decision of a 
judicial or a quasi-judicial authority. 
There is no provision in the Act 
empowering the Board to issue 
directions to the as5""....ssing authorities or 
the appellate authorities in the matter of deciding disputes between the 
persons who a're called upon to pay duty and the department. Although 
the assessing authorities as well as the appellate authorities are judges in 
their own cause, when they are called upon to decide disputes arising 
under the Act they must act independently and impartially. They cannot 
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] I S.C.R. 
h~ said to act independently if their judgm~nt is controlled by the dircc-
uons given by others. [249 R-C, F-HJ 
Aluniiniu1n C:orporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India, C.1\. 635 of 
1964, decided on September 22, 1965; Malzatlayal PremclziJ11tlra v. Com-
1nercia/ Tax Of]ict·r, c:a/cuua, l 19~9} S.('.R. 551 anJ B. Rajagopal Naidu 
v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, [1964), S.C.R. I; referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos 659 to 
664 of 1965. 
Appeals by special !caw 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 to 725 of 1963. 
S. Ray. R. K. Chaudhury, A. N. Parikh and /J. P. Mahesh-
ivari, for the appellant. 
Seiyed Mohammad and S. P .. l\'ayyar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered hy 
Hegde, J. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the 
orders made hy the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, 
Department of Revenue, New Delhi on October 5. 
1963. in 
Central Excise Revision Applicati

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