ORDER
1. Ganesh Tobacco Company, 127/217-A, Juhi Bara Devi, Kanpur, is a manufacturer of chewing tobacco. Chewing tobacco, after being manufactured, is packed in pudiyas and thereafter further packed and sealed in cartons and are kept in gunny bags. The petitioner, which is a manufacturer of tobacco, submitted a price list showing gross price of the tobacco as packed, (including the cost of the packing material), and claimed the benefit of concessional assessment at the rate of 15 per cent in terms of Notification No. 35/79, on the plea that the value of the branded chewing tobacco did not exceed Rs. 10/- per kilogram.
2. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, allowed the petitioners plea for calculation of value of the chewing tobacco for the purposes of Notification No. 35/79 on the basis of gross value divided by the gross weight. Against the aforesaid order in appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Kanpur. The appeal was allowed by the Collector (Appeals) by his order dated 19-3-1981, and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector for de now consideration.
3. After remand, the Assistant Collector again passed an order with regard to the rate of excise duty payable by the petitioner, which was against it. The petitioner filed a fresh appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The appeal was partly allowed in so far as it pertained to computation of the price list holding that the logical method of calculating the value per kilogram of the branded chewing tobacco manufactured by the petitioner's concern was to divide the gross value of the unit of sale by the gross weight of the tobacco.
4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the present writ petition in this Court seeking quashing the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 18-2-1987, on the ground that the net value and the gross value of the unit of sale being the same, the method evolved by the Collector, Central Excise, was incorrect.
5. During the pendency of this writ petition, the appeal filed before the Tribunal Delhi, by the Central Excise Department, has been allowed partly. The material portion of the direction given by the Tribunal is as follows :
"We hold that taking the value of the packaged as it moves in the market stream as the basis, the value of the tobacco should be arrived at for notification purposes after abating therefrom the value of the polythene, gunny bags, cartons so that the value of the chewing tobacco in the primary packing bearing the brand is obtained. This value should be divided by the total weight of all the branded packets in which the tobacco is packed and value so arrived at should be taken as the value per kg. for the purposes of the notification.
6. For what we have found above, we direct the Assistant Collector Central Excise to determine the tax liability of the petitioner in accordance with the directions given in the judgment of the Tribunal dated 19-3-1989 and to also decide the refund entitlement of the petitioner on that basis. Earlier orders passed by the Assistant Collector Central Excise rejecting the refund application are set aside. The matter is since pending since the Assistant Collector may dispose of the cases expeditiously.
7. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.