TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (10) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim dated 27-3-1981 for refund for Rs. 1,39,095.60 filed by M/s. Guest Keen Williams Ltd., the respondent herein. In the appeal it is contended that the earlier order No. V/28A/17/3/75-Vol.-II, dated 26-9-1980 passed by the then Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore I Division was neither a speaking order nor any points of law were discussed and as such did not merit consideration and it did not preclude the adjudicating authority to reopen the case at the time of refund and clarify the stand of the department with regard to the assessability of duty on packing charges. 2. The S.D.R. submitted that by these two so-called orders dated 23-2-1980 and 26-9-1980 the then Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore Divisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder passed by the first A.C. 4. To appreciate the legal points involved in this case, it is useful to set out the facts relating to issue of more than one order in the present case as set out in the order of the Collector (Appeals) : "Appellants manufacture `Electrical Stampings and Laminations' falling under T.I. No. 28A. These excisable goods are assessable on ad valorem basis and hence, appellants filed price lists wherein ex-factory prices and packing charges were shown separately. In this order-in-original C. No. V/ 28A/17/3/75, dated 17-2-1976, Assistant Collector held that the excisable goods in question are normally delivered only after packing and such packing is included in the price; and as such the packing charges ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e quantum of refund claim once again examined the merits and concluded that the packing charges are includible in the assessable value, and as such rejected the refund claim as in-admissible." It is to be noted that the respondent had been protesting against inclusion of packing charges in the assessable value of the goods since 17-6-1975. We note that by his letter No. Accts. 1100/75, dated 17-6-1975, the respondent has dwelt at length on the illegality of inclusion of packing charges and stated inter alia, "in view of our note in all the price lists that packing charges is not excisable and that we are paying the same under `protest', we should be grateful if this letter is treated as our claim for refund of excise duty paid on packing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n packed condition or any further amendments are made in this regard." It is unfortunate that in the order dated 23-2-1980 the then A.C. noted that he was dropping further proceedings in this regard. What he had before him was a protest from the respondent about inclusion of packing charges. He should have, therefore, directed his office to finalise the assessments. This was, however, not done. But referring to the order dated 26-9-1980 the respondent filed a claim for refund which is the subject matter of the present proceedings before us. In the grounds of refund it is specifically stated that the A C. having decided that no duty is payable on packing charges, claim for refund for the period January, 1976 to 30th September, 1980 is bei....