GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) WHAT is the appropriate amount of court-fees payable on the petition of appeal filed by the appellant, Orient Paper Mills Ltd., under Schedule III, Part II of the Supreme court Rules, 1950, that is the short question of law which arises for our decision in this matter. The appellant carries on the business of manufacturing and selling paper and paper board, and is registered as such under the 657 central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (No. I of 1944) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The respondent, the Union of India, charges excise duty under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act on the paper manufactured by the appellant before the manufactured goods are cleared out of the appellant's ware-house. Among various kinds of paper which the appellant manufactures and sells, are included 'Packing and Wrapping' and 'Printing and Writing Paper'. The aforesaid 'Printing and Writing Paper' is of various varieties and it includes Machine Glazed Poster popularly known as M.G. Posters. Prior to the Finance Act of 1961, the printing and writing paper was classified and charged under item 17(3) of the Schedule to the Act and the wrapping paper was charged under item 17(4) of the Schedule; even so, the duty on both the items was the same, viz., 0 . 22 P. per kilogram. The duty under item 17(4) was, however, enhanced by the Finance Act of 1961 -and increased to 0 - 35 P. per kilogram from the 1/03/1961. About six months after the enhanced duty came into force, the Excise authorities decided that the M.G. Poster manufactured by the appellant should be charged under item 17(4) and demand notices were issued accordingly for the different months during which the said paper was manufactured. In consequence of this demand, a total sum of Rs. 2,79,175-27 P. was collected from the appellant as difference in the duty leviable for the assessment periods covered by the several appeals which are pending in this court and with which we are concerned in the present proceedings. As a result of these demands, the appellant had to pay the duty which it did under protest. Thereafter, it claimed a refund under Rule II of the Rules framed under the Act. This Rule prescribes a period of three months within which a claim for refund can be made `in consequence of the sum having been paid through inadvertance, error or misconstruction`. The appellant urged that the duty on the goods in question was chargeable under item 17(3) and not under item 17(4) of the Tariff Rules. One of the reliefs claimed by the appellant in its petitions of appeal was that the Excise authorities be directed to assess the poster paper under item 17(3) and not under item 17(4) and to make a direction as to the refund of the excess amount recovered from the appellant. The excess amount of which refund was thus claimed came to Rs. 84,928.84 P. This application was rejected by the Assistant Collector of central Excise, Cuttack Division, Cuttack. Against the said decision, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Collector of central Excise under s. 35 of the Act. In its appeal memo to the Collector, the appellant had claimed that the order under appeal should be revoked and Rs. 84,928.84 P. should be refunded to it. A further claim was made by the appellant that the excise authorities should be directed to assess the poster paper under item 17(3) and not under item 17(4). The said appeal was rejected by the Collector of Customs on 28/7/1962.
(3.) THE appellant then moved the respondent by way of revision under S. 36 of the Act. In its revision application, the appellant made prayers similar to those which it had made before the Appellate Authority. This revision application was also dismissed. It is against this revisional order that the appellant has come to this court by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. It appears that in the various paragraphs of its application for leave, the appellant has reiterated its claim for refund of money recovered from it in excess of the amount legitimately due from it and has challenged the order of the Excise authorities rejecting its claim in that behalf. On these facts, the question which arises is: can the appellant be permitted to pay a court-fee of Rs. 250.00 on its petitions for appeal, or is it necessary that it ought to pay court-fees at the rate prescribed by sub-clause (2) of entry 2 in Schedule III, Part II of the Supreme court Rules? This question was referred by the Deputy Registrar of this court to the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers. The learned Judge referred to the respective contentions raised before him by the parties and considered the practice in regard to the levy of court-fees in allied matters. He took the view that the practice with regard to levy of court-fees was in a state of flux and it required full consideration. That is why he directed that the matter be adjourned to court. It is as a result of this direction made by the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers that this matter has come before us for disposal on the question of court-fees. Let us cite the relevant provisions of the Supreme court Rules in relation to court-fees in this matter. Enrty 2 in Part 11 of Schedule III reads thus:- JUDGEMENT_1754_AIR(SC)_1966Html1.htm There is a proviso to this entry which reads thus: `Provided: (1) that the maximum fee payable in any case shall not exceed Rs. 2,000.00 and (2) that where an appeal is brought by special leave granted by this court credit shall be given to the appellant for the amount of court-fee paid by him on the petition for special leave to appeal`. ;