Excise valuation must exclude post-manufacturing costs, and refund of unlawful duty may survive delay if sought within reasonable time.

Excise valuation of cigarettes was stated to depend on the wholesale cash price at the time of removal, with assessable value confined to manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit. Post-manufacturing expenses and selling profits were excluded, so assessment on the distributors' resale price was contrary to law. On refund, the text states that writ relief may still lie for duty collected without authority of law; limitation does not strictly govern such petitions, but delay is judged by the ordinary period for suit and by reasonable time after discovery of a mistake of law. Payments were treated as made under mistake of law rather than coercion, and refund was not barred on laches.

---

---

Issues: Whether excise duty on cigarettes was required to be assessed on the price charged by the manufacturer to its sole distributors or on the distributors' resale price to wholesalers; whether post-manufacturing expenses were deductible in determining assessable value; whether the refund claim was barred by limitation or could be refused on the ground of laches, coercion, or voluntary payment; and whether the writ petition was maintainable for refund of duty recovered without authority of law.

Analysis: The assessable value under the charging provision had to be the wholesale cash price at the time of removal, and the legal position as settled by the later Supreme Court decisions was that only manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit could form part of the value, while post-manufacturing expenses and selling profits were to be excluded. The earlier departmental practice and assessments based on the distributors' resale price were therefore contrary to law. On limitation and laches, the controlling principle was that though limitation provisions do not directly govern writs, the period prescribed for a suit furnishes the ordinary standard for judging delay; even so, where the levy is without authority of law and the mistake of law is discovered later, refund may still be granted if the petition is brought within a reasonable time from discovery. The payments were held to be made under a mistake of law rather than under coercion, and the contention that the petitioners had discovered the mistake earlier was rejected.

Conclusion: The duty collected on inclusion of post-manufacturing expenses was not lawfully recoverable, the refund claim was not defeated by the plea of limitation or laches, and the petitioners were entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The assessment basis adopted by the revenue was invalid to the extent it included post-manufacturing elements, and the retained excess duty could not be refused on the grounds urged by the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: In excise valuation, the assessable value is confined to manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, excluding post-manufacturing expenses and selling profits; a refund of duty collected without authority of law may be entertained in writ jurisdiction where the claim is brought within a reasonable time after discovery of the mistake of law.

---