Court rules in favor of glassware manufacturer in challenge against cancellation of price list.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a glassware manufacturing company, in a challenge against the cancellation of an approved price list and revised ground plan by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. The court cited a Supreme Court decision to support the petitioner's argument that no duty should be payable for printing and decoration done in separate premises. Consequently, the court quashed the orders and consequential proceedings, including show cause notices, and made the rule absolute with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of approved price list and revised ground plan by Assistant Collector, Central Excise.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a limited company involved in manufacturing glassware and color printing, challenged the cancellation of approved price list and revised ground plan by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise. The petitioner argued that based on a Supreme Court decision, no duty should be payable for printing and decoration done in separate premises. The respondent contended that the petitioner company, despite having different manufacturing units, should not be considered separate as they shared common staff and management. The court found in favor of the petitioner, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court decision in the case of J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. The court noted that subsequent show cause notices pertained to the period when goods were cleared under the approved price list, which was not disputed by the respondent. The court also highlighted the limitation period for one of the show cause notices, but deemed it unnecessary to delve into it due to the conclusion in favor of the petitioner based on the J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. decision.

The court quashed and set aside the orders dated 11-5-1984 and 14-5-1984, along with all consequential proceedings, including the show cause notices. The court made the rule absolute and ruled that there shall be no order as to costs. In Civil Application Nos. 236 & 237 of 1986, the court stated that separate orders were not required due to the decision in the main petition, and made the rule absolute with no order as to costs.

---