1987 (8) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollapsible aluminium tubes. They are also carrying on the process of capping of collapsible aluminium tubes within the company's licensed factory premises. 2. In writ petition No. 1249 of 1980 this Court, after admitting this petition challenging the claim of the revenue with regard to excise duty on the caps and capping charges, granted interim relief by an order dated October 22, 1980 permitt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng fitted with caps. They also assure that they would keep proper accounts of duty paid material received in their warehouse/store room and its despatch to the customers duly capped. 3. Thereafter by a letter dated September 6, 1984 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, they submitted that there is a change in the ground plan for the licensed premises. In this they indicated that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ised plan. The petitioners, therefore filed the present petition to challenge these two orders viz. Ex. E and Ex. J to the petition. 5. In the meanwhile writ petition No. 1249 of 1980 came to be decided by me on July 3, 1987 wherein I held that caps and capping charges would not be included as an item of manufacture and, therefore, no excise duty was leviable under Item No. 27 of the Tariff. It....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... tubes. 7. However, Mr. Master submits that as against the order of the Range Superintendent the petitioners could have preferred an appeal. He, therefore, submits that the present petition is not maintainable. I find no substance in this argument. It was clear that before this petition was filed by virtue of an order passed in writ petition No. 1249 of 1980, the respondents had to be restraine....