{"id":22156,"date":"1990-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990"},"modified":"2018-07-24T16:30:54","modified_gmt":"2018-07-24T11:00:54","slug":"seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990","title":{"rendered":"Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards &#8230; vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 13 February, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards &#8230; vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 13 February, 1990<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR  974, \t\t  1990 SCR  (1) 320<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Kania<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Kania, M.H.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSESHASAYEE PAPER &amp; BOARDS LIMITED, ERODE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/02\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  974\t\t  1990 SCR  (1) 320\n 1990 SCC  (2) 146\t  JT 1990 (1)\t197\n 1990 SCALE  (1)164\n\n\nACT:\n    Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944\/Central Excise Rules,\n1944:\tSection\t 4  and\t First\tSchedule  Tariff  Item\t No.\n17--Excise  duty--Levy of--Paper and paper  boards  manufac-\ntured  by  assessee--'Trade discount'  and  'service  charge\ndiscount'--Permissibility.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant  who was engaged in\tthe  manufacture  of\npaper  and paper boards which were assessable  under  Tariff\nItem No. 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and\nSalt  Act.  1944.  engaged several dealers  referred  to  as\nIndentors, with a view to promote its sales. In the fixation\nof  the normal price of these items under section 4  of\t the\nAct  for the purpose of levy of excise duty,  the  appellant\nclaimed\t deduction on account of 'service  charge  discount'\npaid  to the Indentors, in addition to the 'trade  discount'\npaid to the purchasers.\n    Having  failed  before the assessing authority  and\t the\nCentral\t Excise\t and Gold (Control)  Appellate\tTribunal  in\nrespect\t of  the deduction claimed on  account\tof  'service\ncharge discount' the appellant appealed to this court.\n    It\twas  contended on behalf of the appellant  that\t al-\nthough\tin  some of the sales the discount  allowed  to\t the\nIndentors  might  have been described  as  'service  charges\ndiscount', that name could not govern the real nature of the\ntransaction and the discount was really a 'trade  discount'.\nIt was further contended that in several cases the indentors\nwere really the purchasers themselves and hence, the  normal\ntrade  discount paid to them should have been allowed  as  a\ndeduction.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  (1) The trade discount was discount paid  to\t the\npurchaser  in  accordance with the normal  practice  of\t the\ntrade.\tIn  the determination of the normal  price  for\t the\npurposes  of levy of excise duty, it is only a normal  trade\ndiscount which is paid to the purchaser which can be allowed\nas  a  deduction and commission paid to selling\t agents\t for\nservices rendered by them as agents cannot be regarded as a\n321\ntrade discount qualifying for deduction. [323B-C]\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/522307\/\">Union  of\tIndia &amp; Ors. v. Bombay\tTyres  International\nPvt. Ltd.,<\/a> [1984] 17 E.L.T. 329 (S.C.) and Coromandel Ferti-\nlizers\tLimited v. Union of India &amp; Ors., [1984]  17  E.L.T.\n607 (S.C.), referred to,\n     (2)  If in any case the purchaser named in the  invoice\n18 the same as the Indentor, normal trade discount given  to\nthe Indentor will be allowed as a deduction in the  determi-\nnation\tof the normal price for the levy of the excise\tduty\nsubject to other relevant considerations. [324B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 32 17 of<br \/>\n1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From  the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.88 of the\tCus-<br \/>\ntoms Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi<br \/>\nin E\/Misc\/ 194\/87-A &amp; E\/A No. 1365\/85-A &amp; Order No.  308\/88-<br \/>\nA.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Gauri Shankar, Mrs. H. Wahi, Manoj Arora and S. Rajjappa<br \/>\nfor the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Soli  J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, V.C. Mahajan,\tR.P.<br \/>\nSrivastava and P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    KANIA,  J. This is an appeal preferred by the  appellant<br \/>\n(assessee)  from a judgment of the Central Excise  and\tGold<br \/>\n(Control)  Appellate  Tribunal, New Delhi  (hereinafter\t re-<br \/>\nferred to as &#8220;the said Tribunal&#8221;].\n<\/p>\n<p>    As\tthe  controversy before us is an  extremely  limited<br \/>\none,  we  propose to set out only the  facts  necessary\t for<br \/>\nappreciating that controversy.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The appellant is a public limited company engaged  inter<br \/>\nalia in the manufacture of paper and paper boards which were<br \/>\nassessable under Tariff Item No. 17 of the First Schedule to<br \/>\nthe Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred<br \/>\nto  as &#8220;the Central Excises Act&#8221;). The period with which  we<br \/>\nare concerned in this appeal is the period September 9, 1979<br \/>\nto July 26, 1983. The appellant filed several price lists in<br \/>\nPart I and Part II in respect of the clearances of paper and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">322<\/span><br \/>\npaper boards made by the appellant. Section 4 of the Central<br \/>\nExcises\t Act prescribes the mode of valuation  of  excisable<br \/>\ngoods  for the purposes of charging of the duty\t of  excise.<br \/>\nUnder  clause  (a)  of subsection (1) of section  4,  it  is<br \/>\nprovided, in brief, that the duty of excise is chargeable on<br \/>\nany  excisable\tgoods with reference to value  which  shall,<br \/>\nsubject to the other provisions of the Act, be deemed to  be<br \/>\nthe  normal  price thereof and the normal  price,  generally<br \/>\nspeaking,  is the price at which such goods  are  ordinarily<br \/>\nsold  by the assessee to a buyer in the course of  wholesale<br \/>\ntrade  for delivery at the time and place or removal,  where<br \/>\nthe buyer is not a related person and the price is the\tsole<br \/>\nconsideration  for the sale. In the fixation of\t the  normal<br \/>\nprice  of paper and paper boards manufactured by the  appel-<br \/>\nlant for the purposes of levy of excise duty, the  appellant<br \/>\nclaimed\t several  deductions. One of  these  deductions\t was<br \/>\ndescribed as &#8220;trade discount&#8221; and another as &#8220;service charge<br \/>\ndiscount&#8221;.  The trade discount was the discount paid to\t the<br \/>\npurchaser  in  accordance with the normal  practice  of\t the<br \/>\ntrade. The appellant had engaged several dealers with a view<br \/>\nto  promote  its sales. A specimen of the  usual  agreements<br \/>\nentered\t into  by the appellant with its  dealers  has\tbeen<br \/>\ntaken  on  record. The opening part of\tthe  said  agreement<br \/>\nshows that the appellant is referred to in the agreement  as<br \/>\nthe company and the contracting dealer is referred to as the<br \/>\nIndentor. We propose to refer to the dealers engaged by\t the<br \/>\nappellant  to promote the sales of its products\t as  &#8220;Inden-<br \/>\ntors&#8221; for the sake of convenience. Clause (3) of the  agree-<br \/>\nment  shows that the Indentor agreed to purchase in his\t own<br \/>\nname  or procure acceptable indents from third\tparties\t for<br \/>\npaper and paper boards manufactured by the company would  be<br \/>\nof such quantities and varieties as set out in the  Schedule<br \/>\nA to the agreement. The Indentors agreed to deposit with the<br \/>\ncompany a certain amount of money as security. Clause (8) of<br \/>\nthe  agreement\tshows  that the\t Indentors  held  themselves<br \/>\nresponsible  for  the immediate clearance of  the  documents<br \/>\nrelating  to  the  supply of paper on  presentation  by\t the<br \/>\nbankers\t and  that all bank charges other  than\t discounting<br \/>\ncharges would be on the consignee&#8217;s account.<br \/>\n    It\tis common ground that in the invoices in respect  of<br \/>\nthe paper and paper boards supplied and sold pursuant to the<br \/>\naforesaid  agreement with the Indentors, in most  cases\t the<br \/>\nname  of the dealer concerned was shown as the Indentor\t and<br \/>\nthe names of the parties to whom the goods were to be deliv-<br \/>\nered  were  shown as the purchasers but in  some  cases\t the<br \/>\nIndentors were themselves shown as purchasers. It was  urged<br \/>\nby  Dr.\t Gauri Shankar, learned counsel for  the  appellant,<br \/>\nthat  although\tthe  discount allowed to  the  Indentors  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  some  of the aforesaid sales  might  have\tbeen<br \/>\ndescribed as service charge<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">323<\/span><br \/>\ndiscount  that name could not govern the real nature of\t the<br \/>\ntransaction and the discount was really a trade discount. It<br \/>\nwas  submitted\tby him that this discount should  have\tbeen<br \/>\nallowed\t as a deduction in the determination of\t the  normal<br \/>\nprice  of  the aforesaid goods for the purpose\tof  levy  of<br \/>\nexcise\tduty. He relied upon the decision of this  Court  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/522307\/\">Union  of  India &amp; Ors. v. Bombay Tyres\t International\tPvt.<br \/>\nLtd.,<\/a>  [1984]  17 E.L.T. 329 (S.C) and\tsubmitted  that\t the<br \/>\nnomenclature given to the discount could not be regarded  as<br \/>\ndecisive of the real nature of the discount. There can be no<br \/>\nquarrel\t with this proposition. But it is equally well\tset-<br \/>\ntled  that in the determination of the normal price for\t the<br \/>\npurposes  of levy of excise duty, it is only a normal  trade<br \/>\ndiscount which is paid to the purchaser which can be allowed<br \/>\nas  a  deduction and commission paid to selling\t agents\t for<br \/>\nservices rendered by them as agents cannot be regarded as  a<br \/>\ntrade  discount qualifying for deduction (Coromandel  Ferti-<br \/>\nlizers Limited v. Union of India and Ors., [1984] 17  E.L.T.<br \/>\n607  (S.C.).  The correctness of this  proposition  was\t not<br \/>\ndisputed  by  learned counsel for the appellant but  it\t was<br \/>\nsubmitted  by him that in several cases where  supplies\t had<br \/>\nbeen  effected\tpursuant to the\t aforesaid  agreements,\t the<br \/>\nIndentors  were really themselves the purchasers and  hence,<br \/>\nthe  normal  trade discount paid to them  should  have\tbeen<br \/>\nallowed\t as a deduction in the determination of\t the  normal<br \/>\nprice for the purposes of levy of excise duty. We find\tfrom<br \/>\nthe judgment of the Tribunal and the lower authorities\tthat<br \/>\nthere is no dispute that wherever the Indentors are shown as<br \/>\nthe  purchasers in the respective invoices, the\t trade\tdis-<br \/>\ncount  given to them has been allowed as a deduction. More-<br \/>\nover,  to  obviate any controversy in this  regard,  learned<br \/>\nAttorney  General  who\tappears for  the  respondent  fairly<br \/>\nstates\tthat when the matter goes back to the Tribunal,\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  is agreeable that the normal trade discount\t may<br \/>\nbe  allowed in those cases where the Indentor is also  shown<br \/>\nas  the purchaser in the concerned invoice. It is,  however,<br \/>\nsubmitted by learned counsel for the appellant that although<br \/>\nin some of the cases the Indentor might not be shown as\t the<br \/>\npurchaser  and the purchaser shown is the  different  party,<br \/>\nyet the real nature of the transaction was that the Indentor<br \/>\npurchased  the goods referred to in the said invoice and  in<br \/>\nturn  sold  it\tto a customer whose name was  shown  as\t the<br \/>\npurchaser in the invoice for the sake of convenience so that<br \/>\nthe  delivery could be directly effected to him. We  are  of<br \/>\nthe view that it is not open to the appellant to raise\tthis<br \/>\ncontention  at\tthis stage. No case has ever been  made\t out<br \/>\nright upto the Tribunal and even before the Tribunal that in<br \/>\nrespect\t of any particular invoice although the name of\t the<br \/>\npurchaser was other than that of the Indentor, it was really<br \/>\nthe  Indentor who was the purchaser and he in turn has\tsold<br \/>\nthe goods to the third party whose name was shown as<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">324<\/span><br \/>\npurchaser  or  even that the Indentor had entered  into\t the<br \/>\ntransaction as the agent of the purchaser. If such a conten-<br \/>\ntion  had been raised, the factual position could have\tbeen<br \/>\nexamined  and different considerations might have  been\t ap-<br \/>\nplied.\tBut  it is certainly not open to  the  appellant  to<br \/>\nraise this contention at this stage, in this appeal, partic-<br \/>\nularly keeping in mind that the Tribunal is the final  fact-<br \/>\nfinding\t authority.  No\t other contention  has\tbeen  raised<br \/>\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tour opinion, there is no merit in the appeal.  There<br \/>\nwill,  however,\t be  one clarification that,  as  agreed  to<br \/>\nlearned Attorney General, if in any case the purchaser named<br \/>\nin  the\t invoice is the same as the Indentor,  normal  trade<br \/>\ndiscount  given to the Indentor will be allowed as a  deduc-<br \/>\ntion  in the determination of the normal price for the\tlevy<br \/>\nof excise duty subject to other relevant considerations.<br \/>\n    In\tthe result, the appeal fails and is dismissed,\tsave<br \/>\nto the extent of the aforesaid clarification. The  appellant<br \/>\nto pay the costs of the appeal to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<pre>R.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t       Appeal\tdis-\nmissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">325<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards &#8230; vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 13 February, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 974, 1990 SCR (1) 320 Author: M Kania Bench: Kania, M.H. PETITIONER: SESHASAYEE PAPER &amp; BOARDS LIMITED, ERODE Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/02\/1990 BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22156","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 13 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 13 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1990-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-24T11:00:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards &#8230; vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 13 February, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T11:00:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990\"},\"wordCount\":1459,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990\",\"name\":\"Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 13 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T11:00:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards &#8230; vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 13 February, 1990\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 13 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 13 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-24T11:00:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards &#8230; vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 13 February, 1990","datePublished":"1990-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T11:00:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990"},"wordCount":1459,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990","name":"Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 13 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T11:00:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seshasayee-paper-boards-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-13-february-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Seshasayee Paper &amp; Boards &#8230; vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 13 February, 1990"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22156","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22156"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22156\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22156"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}