1985 (11) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ags could be included in the value for charging excise duty on cement under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner's contention that the cost of packing ought not to be included in the valus for purpose of charging excise duty on cement being rejected by the respondents, Misc. Petition No. 704 of 1976 was filed in this Court by the petitioner to assail that decision. The petitioner had also paid duty on the cost of packing under protest for the period from 30th October, 1975 to 8th January, 1976, even though no such duty had been paid for the period from 1st October, 1975 to 29th October, 1975. That writ petition was allowed along with another petition involving the same point and the common decision is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot be made. These show cause notices are challenged in these two petitions and together cover the entire period from 1st October, 1975 to 8th January, 1976. The two sets of notices are to cover the two periods between these dates for which the duty was not paid or was paid under protest. 4. The petitioner's contention is that the respondents have no authority to reopen the matter which has been concluded by the earlier decision and commencement of fresh proceedings to supersede judicial determination of the points between the parties is clearly without the authority of law. It is on this basis that the petitioners seek to quash all these show cause notices. 5. The respondents, in reply, placed reliance on Section 47 of the Finance Act....