1970 (3) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of manufacturing and selling various kinds of paper and boards at its factory at Brajajnagar in the district of Sambalpur in the State of Orissa. It manufactures various types and qualities of paper. It is stated that there are three types of paper which are principally manufactured. These are creamwove paper, map litho paper and writing paper. In the appeal the facts of which are under consideration we are concerned with creamwove paper on which excise duty was levied. From the year 1960 till July, 1961 creamwove paper was being assessed as printing and writing paper under Item 17(3) of the First Schedule to the Act, the rate being 35 np. per kg. Sometimes in July, 1961 the Central Excise authorities required the appellant to send samples....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....competent authority. On September 19, 1961 the appellant made an inquiry from the Deputy Superintendent as to the basis on which classification in the matter of assessment of duty had been made. The Deputy Superintendent sent the following reply on September 20, 1961. "......I am to inform you that the classifications as intimated to you in respect of the above-mentioned varieties of paper are as per decision of the competent authority." It was further admitted in the letter of the Assistant Collector, Cuttack to the Collector, Central Excise dated April 7, 1962 that the classification of the paper in question was made under Item 17(1) of the tariff as cartridge paper in accordance with instructions contained in the Collector's letter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... instructions issued by the Collector to whom an appeal lay against the order of that subordinate officer can be called a valid assessment in the eye of law. As has been pointed out in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1969) 1 SCR 245 = (AIR 1969 SC 48) in which the parties were the same as before us now no authority, however high, can control the decision of a judicial or a quasi-judicial authority that being the essence of our judicial system. In the present case, when the assessment is to be made by the Deputy Superintendent or the Assistant Collector, the Collector, to whom an appeal lies against his order of assessment, cannot control or fetter his judgment in the matter of assessment. If the Collector issues directions by wh....