9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10,94,280/- has been confirmed. 2. The necessary facts of the case for decision of the writ petition are as under : In order to encourage and maximizing the production of sugar, the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 issued a notification dated 4-10-1973. The said notification was amended by another notification, dated 20-4-1974. Portions relevant for the purposes of the present case of the aforesaid notifications are being reproduced below :- "BHARAT SARKAR VITTA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI DATED THE 4TH OCTOBER, 1973. NOTIFICATION CENTRAL 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 Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ............................................................................ ……………….. ……………….. Explanation. - In this notification, the expression 'base period' means the period commencing from the 1st day of October, 1972, and ending with the 30th day of September, 1973. ........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ ………………. ………………. "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND INSURANCE) NEW DELHI, DATED 20TH APRIL, 1974 NOTIFICATION CENTRAL EXCISE G.S.R. In exercise of the powers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim submitted by the petitioner Company was allowed and the petitioner Company was granted a rebate of Rs. 10,94,280/-. Subsequent thereto a notice, dated 22-12-1976 was served on the petitioner by the Range Officer of Central Excise, Roorkee to explain as to why the amount of rebate given to the petitioner may not be recovered back under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioners contested the said notice. Ultimately by the impugned order, the demand has been confirmed and the petitioner Company has been asked to pay back the amount for which rebate was granted to it. 6. The sole question for consideration in the present matter is whether under the aforesaid notifications, the petitioner Company was entitled for a rebate? In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly entitled for the rebate. 8. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1983 Excise Law Times, page 205 (Allahabad). The notifications involved for consideration in this case were almost similar in nature and the Explanation and the proviso were also similar to the proviso and the Explanation given in the present notifications. This Court took the view that if the petitioner's factory did not produce any sugar during the preceding equivalent period but did produce sugar in the period defined under the Explanation, the petitioner was entitled for the rebate. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. We are in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
