( 1 ) M/s. Rollatainers Limited, a public limited Company incorporated under the companies Act, petitioner-1 which will be hereafter referred to as the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of 'printed cartons' at its two factories-one situated at Makali near Nelamangala of bangalore District and the other at Faridabad of Hariyana State. In this petition, we are concerned with the manufacture of 'printed cartons' at Makali factory only.

( 2 ) FOR the period from 1-3-1975 to 1-3-1983 the said manufactured goods were exigible to excise duty under Tariff item No. 68 of the Central Excise and sales Act of 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944) (here inafter referred to as the act ). But. Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred on it by rule 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules of 1944 (here inaftsr referred to as the Rules) made under the Act, by its notification No. 55 of 1975 dated 1-3-1975, amended from time to time, exempted various manufactured articles one of which was Item No. 13-"all produces of the printing industry including new papers and printed periodicals" from the whole of excise duty leviable thereon under the Act, Both sides are agreed that the said exemption of Item No. 13 continued only till 28-2-1983 and not thereafter.

( 3 ) 26-10-19. 79 the petitioner filed a classification list (Annexure-C) in the appropriate form prescribed by the Rules before the superintendent of Control Exercise m. O. R. B. , Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the superintendent) claiming that 'printed Cartons' manufactured by it was exempted from payment of whole of excise duty under the Act in the aforesaid notification, who on its examination accepted the same. On that basis, the petitioner cleared the goods manufactured by it without passing on the excise duty to its costomers to which it was entitled to. In accepting the same, the superintendent followed a decision rendered by Government in the matter of Allibhoy Shrufally and Company (1978. E. L. T. 145) in which it had expressly found that 'printed cartons' were to be treated as 'products of printing industry entitled for exemption under item No. 13 of the notification dated 5-5-1975.

( 4 ) BUT, Government in a later case decided on 23-5-80' in re : Vijaya Flexible container Limited, Bombay. (FE) 1980 E. L. T. 646 (G. O. I.) disagreeing with the earlier decision in Allibhoy Shrufally's case expressed the view that 'printed cartons' were 'products of packaging industry' and was, therefore, not entitled for evemption from payment of excise duty under the Act and the notifications issued the eunder. Evidently, on the basis of this decision of Government, the superintendent in his notice dated 15-9-1980 (Annexure-E) expressing on the above terms, cal'ed upon the petitioner to file fresh classification list for approval with which it complied under protest cleared the goods on payment of excise duty. Bytwo separate but indentical show cause notices dated 24-9-1980 (Annexures G and H) - the first one relating to the period from November, 1979 to Nov. 80 and the relating to the period from march, 1980 to August, 1980 the superintendent has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,70,638-30 and rs. 4,13-074-01 being the excise duty that should have been otherwise levied but not levied and collected for the aforesaid periods. In this petition under article 225 of the Constitution, the petitioner and one of its shareholder, who is petitioner-2, have challenged the communication dated 15-9-1980 (Annexure-E) and the show cause notices dated 24-9- 1980 of the superintendent (Annexures-G and H) and have sought for a mandamus to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 18,69,286-79, being the excise duty rate for the period item No. 13, of the exemption notification was in force.

( 5 ) AS before the respondents, the petitioner has assertid tl at what was manufactured was a product of printing industry, and not a product of packaging industry'. On this premise the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document