RAVANI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner company manufactured Fluorescent Starter Switches. While manufacturing this product, Aluminium Cannisters were also being manufactured as intermediate product which were derived either from aluminium slugs or from aluminium strips by process of extrusion, trimming, knurling and cutting. According to the petitioner aluminium cannisters were not excisable goods and the petitioner was not liable to pay duty of excise on the same. The dispute was carried upto the Government of India by way of revision as per the relevant provisions of law which were in force at the relevant time. The Government of India by order dated December 12, 1975 held that aluminium cannisters were ancillary to the manufacture of fluorescent starter switches and that the goods were extruded, but the same were not bought or sold in the market. For the reasons mentioned in the order, the Government of India allowed the revision application.
(2.) THEREAFTER the petitioner preferred refund claim for Rs. 53,750/ - before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division III, Ahmedabad in relation to the period commencing from October 7, 1970 to February 29, 1976. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as per order dated May 18, 1978. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) allowed the same as per order dated December 13, 1979. Thus, according to the appellate order, the petitioner was entitled to receive the amount claimed as and by way of refund. Thereafter the petitioner requested the appropriate authority of the excise department to pay the amount of Rs. 53,750/ -. However, the respondent authorities did not respond favourably. Hence the petition praying that the respondents be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 53,750/ - with 18 per cent interest.
(3.) THE petitioner has also prayed for an amount of Rs. 10,217.53 ps. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition is confined to the prayer with regard to Rs. 53,750/ - only and therefore we do not refer to the claim of Rs. 10,217.53 ps.;