1993 (9) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion in both these actions against common respondents is exactly the same and therefore, they are taken up for consideration in this common order, although the petitioner is distinctively different. 2. M/s. Paper Products Ltd., Madras-42 (for short 'PPL' - petitioner in the former WP) is registered as a limited company under the Indian Companies Act, carrying on business, inter alia, of process....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect of the amount paid towards the Excise Duty on the printed wax paper and the imprinted wax paper in the proper forum, enclosing the relevant statement details and particulars of the claims together with grounds therefor, before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, in Division, Madras-35 (common first respondent). The first respondent rejected the claim so made in his proceedings in C. No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) A. No. 251/82(M) dated 14-7-1982. 4. Both PPL and FP, aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, resorted to the respective present actions praying for issue of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the same and to direct the respondents to refund all the amounts paid by them towards Excise Duty on wax paper. 5. From the arguments of Mr. N.S. Nandakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n therein, on an occasion more than one and to highlight such an aspect of the matter, two decisions, namely, (1) Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1990 (49) E.L.T. 326 (SC)], and (2) Union of India v. Babubhai Nylchand Mehta [1991 (51) E.L.T. 182 (SC)], of the apex Court, if referred to, will serve the intended purpose. 7. In the former case, the Supreme Court express....