9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No. 835 of 1980 did not produce any sugar in the month of May, 1973 as well. 3. The Government of India issued Notification No. 189/73-Central Excises, dated October 4, 1973, where sugar incentive rebate on the production during the incentive period detailed therein was allowed. The relevant part of this notification reads as under :- "(b) Notification No. 189/73-Central Excises, dated 4th October, 1973. 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 ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication dated April 20, 1974 and the entries at Serial Numbers 2, 3 and 4 in the earlier notification were substituted. The relevant part of the amending notification dated April 20, 1974 reads as under :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) No. 189/73-Central Excises, dated the 4th October, 1973, namely :- In the said notification- (a) in the table- (i) for Serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted namely - "2. Sugar produced in the factory during the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rebate at the rate of Rs. 30/- and Rs. 40/- per quintal under Items 2B and 3A respectively of the notification dated April 20, 1974. The total amount of rebate for these two months of 1974 admittedly comes to Rs. 4,67,570/-. The appellant got the rebate of this amount, but was later on issued a show cause notice why this amount be not realised on the ground that the appellant did not produce any sugar in the months of April and May 1973. The appellant resisted the show cause notice, but failed. The Assistant Collector Central Excise, Appellate Collector, Central Excise and Government of India vide their orders P4, P6 and P8 respectively disallowed the claim of rebate. The appellant consequently filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1034 of 1978 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larger national interest and not for the specific benefit of sugar manufacturing units. In this situation to hold that the sugar mills which did not produce sugar in April and May, 1973 were not entitled to sugar incentive rebate in terms of notification dated April 20, 1974 would not only be incorrect interpretation thereof but would also negate the very object for which it was issued. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Union of India is that for the sugar incentive rebate under the notification it is necessary that in the corresponding months of 1973 some sugar was produced. The argument proceeds that the words "sugarcane produced during the months of …….. 1973" presupposes that there was some production of sugar in the corresp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed nil sugar. The proviso to the notification that the exemption mentioned against Serial Numbers 1 to 4 of the notification shall not be admissible to a factory which did not work during the base period was also taken notice of. In the context it was held that the base period was defined in the explanation to the notification as the period from 1st October to 30th September of the previous year and according to the proviso the exemptions were inadmissible if the factory had not worked at all during the base period. In other words the proviso to the notification did not make exemptions inadmissible if the factory did not work during the corresponding periods in the base year. If the object of the notification was not to grant any exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer producing 1000 quintals during a certain period in one year produces less during the corresponding period next year, he cannot claim to be entitled to any incentive as he has actually produced less than what he used to produce before. 10. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The points now argued by the learned Counsel for the Union of India were raised in the Andhra Pradesh case and the learned Judge in his order dated February 3, 1978 fully met and rightly repelled them. We, therefore, hold that the appellants are entitled to sugar incentive rebate in terms of notification dated April 20, 1974 for the sugar produced by them in the months of April and May, 1974 irresp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
