JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ. - The petitioner is a paper Mill. It had applied to the Director General, Technical Development, New Delhi for registering itself with him. In the application, it indicated its installed capacity as 2800 M. Tonnes per annum. Petitioner says that on account of non-availability of machinery, it installed the machinery of 1600 M. Tonnes per annum only. It commenced production of Kraft paper in the year 1981 and in that connection, it submitted a classification list as well as a price list for approval of the appropriate Central Excise Officer. 2. In the classification list submitted by the petitioner, it took its actual installed capacity as the basis and claimed the benefit of Exemption notification issued by the Central Government under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. According to the said notification, it appears, if installed capacity is less than 2000 M. Tonnes per annum, the manufacturer would be entitled to rebate in excise duly to an extent of 75% but if it is above 2000 M. Tonnes per annum (and below 3000 M. Tonnes per annum), it would be entitled to rebate to an extent of 60% only. The classification list and the price list submitted by the petitioner were forwarded by the Inspector, Central Excise through his letter, dated 17.9.1981 to the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Division-II, Meerut under Rule 173-CC. Under the said letter, a copy of which was marked to the petitioner, it was intimated that in terms of Rule 173-CC, it is entitled to remove the goods pending approval of the said classification list provided it executes a bond in Form B-13, within a period of four days of the clearance; of course an option was also given to the petitioner to have classification list itself approved by the proper authority before clearing the goods. 3. Subsequently by his order dated 1.5.1982, the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise passed orders approving the classification list submitted by the petitioner. 3. Subsequently by his order dated 1.5.1982, the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise passed orders approving the classification list submitted by the petitioner. The operative portion of the order reads as under: In view of the above circumstances of the case, I take annual installed capacity of M/s. Shamli Paper Mill Ltd., Sikka as 2800 as per their registered capacity for which the Government of India has licensed this party, vide their letter No. 11/DPI-2 (241) 79/1352, dated 29.4.79 and accordingly classification list No. 1/81 effective from 10.9.81 which was earlier approved provisionally is approved finally from 10.9.81 and the exemption under Notification No. 128/77 dated 18.6.77 (as amended) is granted as available against S. No. 2 of the table annexed to the aforesaid Notification i.e. 60% of the basic duty leviable on it. The aforementioned classification list may be taken as suitably amended to this extent. 4. The petitioner then approached this Court claiming more than one relief. It questioned the aforesaid order dated 1.5.1982 and also asked for a direction to the 4th respondent (Director General of Technical Development) to issue a certificate indicating the actual installed capacity of the plant of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner's case is that in spite of its repeated applications to appropriately amend its registration certificate and show its installed capacity as 1600 M. Tonnes per annum as against 2800 M. Tonnes per annum, no action has been taken by the 4th respondent in that behalf. The petitioner has produced a copy of the letter dated 26.7.1982 from the office of the 4th respondent addressing to the petitioner saying that its applications dated 13th and 19th May, 1982 regarding assessment of installed capacity is pending consideration in the said office. Counsel for the petitioner says that the said applications have remained indisposed of even till this day. With the result that the Central Excise Authorities are continuing to treat the installed capacity of the petitioner factory as 2800 M.Tonnes per annum. The petitioner says that the 4th respondent is causing great prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as it is obliged to pay duty at a higher rate than it is bound to pay according to its actual installed capacity. 6. The petitioner says that the 4th respondent is causing great prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as it is obliged to pay duty at a higher rate than it is bound to pay according to its actual installed capacity. 6. Having regard to the above circumstances and also having regard to the fact that the order, dated 1.5.1982 is questioned in this writ petition which was entertained as far back as 1982 we are inclined to issue following directions: 1. The 4th respondent shall pass orders on the petitioner's letters/representations, dated 13th and 19th May, 1982, if not already passed and determine its installed capacity. If orders are not already passed, the same shall be passed, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him by the petitioner. 2. If by virtue of orders already passed by the 4th respondent or to be passed hereinafter, the installed capacity of the petitioner is reduced, the Asstt. Collector Central Excise shall modify and revise his order, dated 1.5.1982 accordingly. 3. If the petitioner's letters/representations aforesaid are not disposed of as yet, the interim order made by this Court on 7.12.1982 shall be effective and operative till passing of such orders. 4. If the petitioner has been clearing the goods on the basis of the aforesaid interim order dated 7.12.1982 and if it has filed any classification lists or price lists subsequently, the directions given above shall be operative with respect to such classification lists and price lists, as the case may be. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs.