A.K.MUKHERJI
HINDUSTAN PILKINGTON GLASS WORKS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL EXCISE, ASANSOLE – Respondent
( 1 ) COMMON questions of law are involved in these two Rules. The facts and circumstances of these cases are also similar. Accordingly these two Rules are heard together and a common judgment shall govern these two cases.
( 2 ) C. R. No. 6628 (W) of 1972 is directed against the orders dated March 15, 1972 and March 27, 1972 determining the assessable value of the glass products manufactured by the petitioner and the assessment of excise duty for the months of April, 1971 to August 1971 and demands totalling Rs. 46,227. 92 on account of differential duty between the assessable value as approved by the impugned orders of the Respondent No. 1 and the assessable value as declared by the petitioner in its price list.
( 3 ) C. R. 1386 (W) of 1974 is directed against the impugned orders determining the assessable value and order of assessment and demands on the basis thereof for the periods September, 1971 to September, 1973. In this Rule the petitioner further prays for a refund of Rs. 47,71,166. 00 realised from the petitioner by way of excise duty in respect of the. selling cost and selling profits, the fowarding and special packing charges and discount in the ass
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.