TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. 2. On 28-9-1972 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, issued a notification granting certain exemptions in payment of Excise duty on sugar produced by Sugar Factories as incentive Excise rebate on certain conditions. Acting upon the said notification, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 8,73,870/- at the rate of Rs. 30/- per quintal on the excess quantity of 29129 quintals of sugar produced by it between the period 1st of May, 1973 to 30th June, 1973. The claim made by the petitioner was scrutinised and allowed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, vide his order dated 31st of October, 1973 and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised by the Excise Department is, therefore, illegal. (ii) The action taken by the Central Excise Authorities for recovering the refund of Rs. 8,73,870/- is also barred by limitation. (iii) The demand raised by the Excise Authorities stands vitiated inasmuch as the same was raised without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to have his say and in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The prayer made in the petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents who contend that the petitioner was not entitled to any exemption under Notification dated 28-9-1972. The refund of Rs. 8,73,870/- was, therefore, wrongly made and the respondents can take steps to realise the same from the petitioner. The respondents als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) which did not work during the base period or (b) ............................................. (c) ............................................. Provided further that in computing the production of sugar during the "periods mentioned in column (2) of the said Table. (a) ............................................... (b) ................................................ (c) ................................................. Explanation I: ........................................................................... ................................. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not say that exemption would be denied if no sugar was produced in the corresponding months of the base period. We are accordingly of opinion, that the submission made by the respondents on the basis of proviso to the notification is not well founded. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents then submitted that inasmuch as under main clause 3 of the notification, the petitioner could be entitled to exemption from payment of Excise duty to the extent indicated therein in respect of sugar produced by it during the months of May and June, 1973 only if it could be shown that it had produced some sugar in excess of the quantity of sugar produced by it during the corresponding period of the year 1972. As in this case, during the months of May an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uashed. In this view of the matter it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the other two points raised in the writ petition. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, brought to our notice a decision of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 865 of 1966 wherein while interpreting similar provision, the Patna High Court had held that in a case where there was nil production in the corresponding period, the exemption in respect of excess production would not be admissible. The decision of the Patna High Court has been noticed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the decisions cited above. Both the courts have disagreed with the view of the Patna High Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
