9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RAL EXCISE G.S.R. — 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 : TABLE Sl. No. Description of Sugar Duty of Excise Free Sale Sugar Levy Sugar (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. Sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on the first day of October, 1974 and ending with the 30th day of November, 1974 in excess of the avera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sugar mills at Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar, U.P. The petitioner in the relevant year, that is, 'year commencing on 1st December,1974 and ending with 30th September, 1974 filed a claim of rebate of excise duty for a sum of Rs. 5,52,205/-. The said claim was revised and an amended claim of Rs. 13,44,053.34 was filed on 16th December, 1976. The Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur vide letter dated 17th July 1975 informed the petitioner that it had been sanctioned rebate pursuant to the notification dated 12th October, 1974 for Rs. 5,52,264/-. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the percentage of rebate envisaged in serial No. 2 of the notification has to be worked out with reference to the actual excess production and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterpretation adopted by excise authorities is possible only if the words 'of the average production' are added to the different percentages mentioned in relevant Notifications, in Item 2 of the Notification dated 12-10-1974." 6. In M/s. Pravara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 1984 Excise and Customs Reporter, page 59, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held as under : "On a plain reading of the Notification, the petitioner is entitled to claim rebate, on the entire excess production over the average as provided by Item No. 2 in Column (2) of the Notification. It is not permissible for the Courts to ignore the interpretation which is in favour of the tax-payer by entering upon the inquiry as to what the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
