SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. - (1.) WINDOW Glass Limited, the petitioner herein, has a factory at Bansberia, District: Hooghly, West Bengal, where it manufactures glass. The excise duty was leviable ad valorem and the petitioner at all material times paid whatever excise duty was levied on the glass manufactured by the petitioner.
(2.) ON 15th September, 1975 the petitioner submitted particulars in respect of goods manufactured by it for approval of the assessable value. In the proforma, the petitioner declared the price at which the various qualities of glass manufactured by the petitioner were sold. The petitioner stated that the price list included the cost of ordinary frame packing but did not include the cost of special packing which was provided at the request of and on account of the buyers for avoiding breakage in transit. The petitioner also declared that forwarding charges and/or carges for providing planks and jam packing were also separately realised but it from the buyers where such services were rendered at the request of and on account of the buyer for the purpose of transportation of the goods. The petitioner claimed that the cost of special packing as well as forwarding and other expenses incurred in connection with transportation of the goods from the factory of the petitioner should not be included in the assessable value. The case of the Respondents is that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter described as the Act) inasmuch as It charged from its customers, excepting customers at Calcutta, forwarding charges, laffa charges and miscellaneous handling charges at different rates In addition to the prices as declared by it while delivering its products from its place of removal, i.e., the factory gate. It was alleged that the petitioner did not include such charges in the prices as declared by it. The petitioner was asked to show cause why the aforesaid charges should not be taken into consideration for determination of the normal price for the purpose of determining the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner failed to appear pursuant to the show cause notice. The petitioners prayed for extension of time was refused and an order was passed ex parte in which the various charges on account of special packing and also transportation of the goods were included in the assessable value.
(3.) THE petitioner has now challenged the ex parte order dated January 27,1976 passed by the Respondent No. 2, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandannagar. The first point urged by the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given a proper hearing. The only extension of time was sought for on the ground that the person who dealt with the excise affairs of the petitioner company, Sri A.N. Singh, was on long leave due to the death of his father at that time. This was the only adjournment the petitioner had prayed for. In all fairness, this adjournment should have been allowed.;