- (1.) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: the respondent, who was the petitioner in the Court below, is a manufacturer of glass and glasswares and has his factory at Ramrajatala in the district of Howrah. Under the Finance Act, 1961 glass and glasswares became liable to pay Central Excise duty under the central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act" ). Item 23a of the Finance Act, 1961 is in the following terms : JUDGEMENT_34_TLCAL0_1967Html1.htm
(2.) IT is admitted before us that we are not concerned with items Nos. 1, 2 and 3 but only with item No. 4. In other words, the goods in the present case were subject to duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem. The petitioner company is a large scale manufacturer and obtained licence under the Central excise and Salt Act. It appears that for the speedy payment of excise duty and clearance of goods, which under the said Act and the rules framed thereunder, could not be removed without payment of duty, a procedure was adopted as follows: before clearance of goods manufactured in the factory, the petitioner company used to submit in the prescribed form, known as A. R. 1 form, the particulars of the goods to be cleared. In that form, the petitioner company gave the value of the goods upon which the duty was to be calculated. The value of goods under the Excise Act and the Rules read with the Finance Act, 1961 is an amount which is capable of being calculated. I Roughly speaking, it is the market value, in the nearest wholesale market. At that stage, the authorities could not verify the correctness of the amounts stated, and so they accepted the valuation given and assessed the petitioner company on the valuation so given, which was in accordance with the price list that was prepared from time to time and at the bottom of the said price lists, there was an endorsement by and on behalf of the petitioner company, as follows: i "we bind ourselves to pay the differential rate of duty if found otherwise on verification. "
(3.) WE are concerned in this case with two periods, namely, from June 1, 1961 to September 25, 1961 and September 26, 1961 to April 30, 1962. During this period, the petitioner company obtained clearance of a large quantity of glass and glasswares and during this time the procedure mentioned above was followed. During the period, the petitioner company kept a sum in deposit in current account with the Central Excise authorities and when a particular lot of goods was allowed to be cleared, this account was debited. On November 16, 1962 and January 16, 1963 two notices were issued, copies whereof are set out at pages 16 and 17 of the paper book. These two notices are headed as-"notice of Demand for duty under rule 9b of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. " In the respective notices, demand was made for payment of a sum of Rs. 35,125. 31 P. and Rs. 67,567. 95 P. ,-"towards differential Central Excise duty due to difference in prices". Payment was demanded within ten days.;