9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from so much of the duty of excise and special duty of excise leviable thereon as is specified in the corresponding entry in columns (2) and (3) of the said Table. THE TABLE Description of Sugar Duty of excise and special duty of excise Free sale sugar Levy sugar (1) 2) (3) Sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on the 1st day of May, 1982, and ending with the 30th day of September, 1982, which is in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years : (Rupees per quintal) 24.5040.00 Provided that the amount of exemption specified in column (2) or column (3) of the said Table shall not exceed the amount of duty of excise payable on free sale sugar or levy sugar, as the case may be. Explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons. The Assistant Collector held that since the factory had produced sugar during May-September of 1980-81 only, that alone could be considered for arriving at the average production and determining the excess production for the year 1981-82. He held further that since there was no production during May-September of 1978-79 and 1979-80, the period of these years had to be ignored while determining the average production as per clause 3 of the notification. To put it simply, he divided the total production of the previous three preceding periods (which, in fact, meant the production of May-September of 1980-81 year only because the production in the earlier two years was nil) by 1. In other words, the production during May-September of 1980-81 season was taken as the average production. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's order and accepted the respondents' plea that the production during May-September of the previous three years should be divided by 3. By doing so, the average production figure becomes smaller and it correspondingly gives a larger figure of excess production during 1981-82 for earning the duty rebate. The Collector of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rant of duty relief for higher production of sugar. The corresponding provisions, which are the subject matter of dispute, were worded differently in this notification. We reproduce them for the sake of a comparative study with the corresponding provisions of Notification No. 132/82-C.E., dated 21-4-1982 :- [Notification No. 146/74-C.E. dated 12-10-1974.] "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the Central Government hereby exempts sugar, described in column (2) of the Table below and falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is specified in the corresponding entry in columns (3) and (4) of the said Table. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t all during October and November of any of the preceding five years. In the second case at 1980 E.L.T. 10 (Madras), a Division Bench of that High Court held that though the production during the months of October and November for some of the years was nil, yet the production could not be said to be nil during the sugar year as such and, consequently, paragraph 4 of the notification on its own terms would not apply. A plea was made on behalf of the department before the High Court that paragraph 4 of the notification should be read as if, after the word 'production' in the commencement of the paragraph, the words 'during the relevant months or corresponding period' were present and not to read the word 'production' as indicating production during the whole of the sugar year. The High Court declined to accept this plea and held that if the language of the notification was deficient to bring out the real intention of the Government, it was not for the High Court to supply the deficiency. 7. We find that the deficiency has been supplied in the new Notification No. 132/82-C.E., dated 21-4-1982 with which we are concerned in the present appeal. As against the words 'means the simp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
