TMI Blog1980 (5) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revision applications mentioned above and therefore he would be submitting common submissions. He stated that a similar issue was involved in the matter of another revision application filed by M/s. Sankar Sahakar Kharkhana on whose behalf also he had appeared for the hearing and that the revision application was rejected by the Govt. vide Order Nos. 105-106/80 dated 5-2-1980. He stated that his a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government of India have carefully considered all the submissions. Government observe that the issue involved in the four revision applications is as to how Sl. No. 2 of the Table appended to the Notification No. 146/74 dated 12-10-74 as amended is to be interpreted. In the revision application by M/s. Sankar Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana, Government have already held vide order Nos. 105-106/80 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. The Madras High Court have however differed from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and have held that the various percentages mentioned in the notification are with reference to the excess production only. With due respect to the Madras High Court judgment, Government are in agreement with the view taken by the justice Chinnappa Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction only. Otherwise, the wordings of the sub-serial No. (a) to (e) would have been different as observed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in its aforesaid judgment. The Andhra Pradesh High Court have pointed out that the notification does not mention that the rebate will be granted on excess production upto 7.5% etc. Apparently the confusion has arisen in this case because of the procedure a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
