Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the appropriate amount of court-fees payable on appeals filed by the appellant, a paper manufacturer, under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appellant carried on business manufacturing and selling paper and paper board, registered under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Among its products were Packing and Wrapping Paper and Printing and Writing Paper, including Machine Glazed Poster (M.G. Posters). Prior to the Finance Act, 1961, both categories were charged under items 17(3) and 17(4) of the Schedule to the Act, respectively, at the same rate of 0.22 P. per kilogram. The Finance Act, 1961 enhanced the duty under item 17(4) to 0.35 P. per kilogram from 1 March 1961. About six months later, the Excise authorities decided that M.G. Poster manufactured by the appellant should be charged under item 17(4), and demand notices were issued. A total sum of Rs. 2,79,175.27 P. was collected from the appellant as difference in duty for the relevant periods. The appellant paid under protest and claimed a refund under Rule II of the Rules framed under the Act, contending that the goods were chargeable under item 17(3). The excess amount claimed was Rs. 84,928.84 P. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise rejected the claim. The appellant's appeal to the Collector of Central Excise under Section 35 was dismissed on 28 July 1962. A revision application under Section 36 to the Government of India was also dismissed. The appellant then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136. The question of court-fee arose because the Deputy Registrar referred it to the Judge in Chambers, who directed the matter to be placed before the Court due to inconsistent practice. The appellant argued that the subject matter of the appeals was classification of goods, which was incapable of valuation, and that even if the appeals succeeded, the court would only declare the classification and refund entitlement, requiring further recovery steps. Therefore, fixed court-fee of Rs. 250 per appeal was appropriate under the residuary clause of Entry 2. The Court rejected this contention. It held that the claim was for a definite, ascertained amount of Rs. 84,928.84 P., so it was possible to estimate the money value of the subject matter. Further, the Court could direct the appropriate authorities to grant the refund, so no further steps were needed. Consequently, ad valorem court-fee as prescribed by Entry 2 in Part II of Schedule III of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 was payable. The Court also referred to Civil Appeal No. 212 of 1956 (State of Madras v. Messrs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.) to explain the practice. The final decision required the appellant to pay court-fee on an ad valorem basis, not the fixed fee of Rs. 250.
Headnote
A) Court-Fee - Supreme Court Rules, 1950, Schedule III, Part II, Entry 2 - Ad Valorem Fee for Definite Amount Claims - Appeal claiming refund of a definite, ascertained amount of excess excise duty is not a case where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject matter in dispute; the Supreme Court can direct the appropriate authorities to grant the refund, so no further steps are needed - Held that the appellant should pay court fee as prescribed by Entry 2 in Part II of Schedule III of the Supreme Court Rules, on an ad valorem basis.
Issue of Consideration
Whether court-fee on appeals under Article 136 claiming refund of a specific amount of excess excise duty should be ad valorem under Entry 2, Part II of Schedule III of Supreme Court Rules, 1950, or fixed at Rs. 250.
Final Decision
The Court held that the claim made by the appellant was for a definite, ascertained amount; therefore it was not a case where it was not possible to estimate at a money value the subject matter in dispute. The Court could direct the appropriate authorities to grant the refund, so no further steps were needed. Consequently, the appellant should pay court fee as prescribed by Entry 2 in Part II of Schedule III of the Supreme Court Rules, on an ad valorem basis.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Ad valorem court-fee applies to appeal claiming refund of definite ascertained amount
- subject matter capable of monetary valuation
- court can grant refund directly
- fixed fee under Entry 2 Part II Schedule III only when impossible to estimate money value
