TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 11-4-1984 in the appeal No. ED(SB)405/79-D filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Kalambar Vibhag SSK Ltd., Gandhinagar. The ratio of this decision is equally applicable in the instant case where the appellants had filed a claim for rebate in terms of Notification No. 135/83-CE, dated 30-4-1983 for the period from 01-05-83 to 30-9-1983. Further, I have also decided the similar issues in the case of M/s Apte Amalgamation Ltd., and M/s. Krishna S.K.K. Ltd., vide this office order-in-appeal No. M-2755-2757/PN-190-192/84 (issued from file No. V-2(1)1975/83, V-2(1)847/84 and V-2(1)173/84 dated 4-2-1985, applying the ratio of the decision passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Joshi, the ld. Advocate represents the respondent. The ld. SDR submitted that in terms of Clause (3) of Notification No. 135/83-CE, the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) has erroneously held that the average production should be arrived at by dividing the total production by three even if there was no production during any of the three years; that Clause (3) of the notification. clearly indicates that where during the period commencing on 1st day of May and ending with the 30th day of the September in any of the three sugar years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 of sugar of the corresponding period of 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 shall, for the purposes of this notification be determined by taking into account only such of the period in which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Notification but also from the term average; that the above argument finds support from Clause (4) of the Notification and if it was not so, the situation would lead to absurdity as the nil production gives the benefit, but production during one year denies it; that if production during 2 years is just one quintal, the benefit would have been given but if it is nil, the years are not to be counted. The ld. Counsel also argued that production is to be ignored where it was nil, but the years would have to be counted for computing the average. In support of his contention, the ld. Counsel relied on the ratio of the decision in cases reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 53, 1987 (29) E.L.T. 46, 1980 (6) E.L.T. 10, 1983 (12) E.L.T. 484, 1986 (26) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gar was not produced therein, shall be ignored. 8. We find that for arriving on an average production we need two quantities: the first quantity should be that of production of sugar and the second quantity should be that of period. In so far as the production of sugar and computing of the quantity thereof is concerned the Notn. is clear and there is no doubt about the method of computation of the total quantity as both the sides have taken the same quantity of production of sugar for this purpose. However, the dispute arises only in counting the period. Whereas the appellant submits that the period should be one year as there was production during only one year, whereas the respondents submit that the total period of 3 years irrespectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
