9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re 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 processing and supplying wax papers to customers and printing of papers and waxing them. It is licensed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per 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. V/17/35/82, dated 15-2-1982. Aggrieved by the said order, a statutory appeal had been preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted 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 respective petitioner and Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 expressed the view that lamination of duty-paid kraft paper with polyethylene resulting in polyethylene lamin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
