( 1 ) PETITIONER Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited, manufactures glass sheets which are chargeable to excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act at a rate depending on their value and is in this regard governed by the procedure laid down in Chapter VII (Rule 173-A to Rule 173 RM) of the Central Excise Rules. It went into production of glass sheets on 3rd January, 1976 and on the same day it as required by Rule 173c, submitted its price list which was to remain operative till 16th January, 1976 before the proper officer for his approval. During this period the petitioner claims to have cleared five consignments of glass sheets in unwrapped condition. A dispute regarding inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value of the goods of such consignment is still pending before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise.

( 2 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner submitted, from time to time, a number of price lists up to 19th April, 1977 for approval of the proper officer. A perusal of the allegations made in paragraph 20 read alongwith copies of the orders Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition as also Annexure 7 to the writ petition shows that three of the price lists, namely, those Nos. 2/76, 7/76 and 9/76 submitted by the petitioner for approval on 17th January, 1976, 9th June, 1976 and 20th December, 1976 were not approved as such by the proper officer who directed that the value of certain packing be also included in the assessable value of glass sheets and he amended those price lists accordingly. Being aggrieved the petitioner went up in appeal before the Appellate Collector who accepted the petitioners case in this regard and disposed of the appeals regarding price lists 2/76 and 7/76 vide his order dated 20th May, 1978 (Annexure 11) and that in respect of price list no. 9/76 vide his order dated 1st August, 1978 (Annexure 2 ). Operative portions of the orders dated 20th May, 1978 and 1st August, 1978 respectively ran thus :

"in view of the above discussions, I order that extra packing charges for frame/case/crate packing of glass sheets and introductory discount uniformly given to all buyers in certain markets or regions would not form part of the assessable value while the charges incurred towards handling and loading within the factory would constitute part of assessable value. Consequential relief is allowed. "

AND"i, therefore, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector relating to Item Nos. (ii) and (iii) and (iv) mentioned in the appeal involving a total amount of Rs. 5,55,925. 47. I also direct that the refund claimed made on this account be accepted and the amount refunded to the appellant. "

( 3 ) IN paragraph 20 of the petition the petitioner claims that under the two appellate orders mentioned above it became entitled to receive a refund of Rs. 3,28,209. 27 and Rs. 4,53,194. 41 P. total Rs. 7,81,403. 68 P. Despite repeated requests the respondents have not yet refunded the said amount to it. The petitioner has been advised to seek separate remedy in respect of this amount and that he would separately be seeking such remedy.

( 4 ) THE petitioner further claimed that it in due course again submitted price lists No. 1/77 on 2nd june, 1977. The proper officer, vide his order dated 16th June, 1977 again did not approve it and modified the same by including the packing charges objected to by it in the assessable value of glass sheets manufactured by it. The petitioner accordingly cleared the glass sheets by paying excise duty in accordance with the modified price list under protest and went up in appeal before the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector vide his order dated 14th October, 1977 (Annexure IV) allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the proper officer modifying the price list No. 1/77. According to it, as a result of the appellate order it became entitled to a refund of Rs. 3,68,595. 86 P. However, despite requests the respondents have not refunded this amount to the petitioner