TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noring the periods in which there was no production. Since in this case there is no production in two out of the three years the average has to be the production in one year only. Appeal dismissed. - 6634 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2003 - Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and Ashok Bhan, JJ. [Judgment per : Ashok Bhan, J.]. - In these appeals the dispute relates to the method of calculation of average production of sugar for the purpose of grant of Central Excise concession in terms of the exemption Notification No. 135/83-C.E., dated 30th April, 1983. 2.In these appeals the point of law is common and the facts are similar. Facts are narrated from Civil Appeal No. 6634 of 1995 being illustrative. 3.Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, District Satara (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') is a registered co-operative Society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar under Tariff Item No. 17.01 under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is holding a registration in terms of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with the 30th day of September in any of the three sugar years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, production of sugar in a factory was nil, the average production of sugar of the corresponding period of 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 shall, for the purposes of this notification be determined by taking into account only such of the period of which sugar was produced in such factory and the period in which sugar was not produced therein, shall be ignored. 4. Where during the period commencing on the 1st day of May and ending with the 30th day of September, in all the three years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, the production of sugar in factory was nil, the entire production of sugar of such factory during the period of commencing on the 1st May, 1983, shall be entitled to exemption under this notification." 5.Appellant had manufactured sugar between 18th of May to 30th of September of the sugar year 1978-79 to the extent of 43,434.400 quintals. Although the appellant had produced sugar in the years 1979-80 and 1980-81, there was no production during the relevant period from 1st May to 30th September which is rebatable period under the notification. Appellant produced 69,784.00 quintal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Collector (Appeals) and restored that of the Assistant Collector. According to the Tribunal the two years in which there was no production had to be ignored and the average could be worked out on the basis of the production of one year only during the relevant period. The Tribunal relied upon clause (3) of the notification which according to it clearly explained that the year in which there was no production of sugar was to be ignored and average production was to be determined by taking into account only such of the period of which sugar was produced in the factory. The sugar years in which there was no production were to be ignored while working out the average production. 8.Exemption notification in question was issued to provide an incentive to the sugar factories to produce sugar during the lean period, i.e., 1st May, 1983 to 30th September, 1983. Entitlement for exemption from paying the excise duty is to be calculated on the average production of sugar commencing on 1st day of May and ending w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars in the base period then the same is to be ignored while calculating the average production of the said three sugar years. According to it, clause (3) of the notification required that year or years of 'nil production' have to be ignored while arriving at average production. Since 'nil production' was there in two years, the period of two years shall be ignored for the purposes of calculation of average production. 10.The interpretation of the word 'any' came up for consideration in Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty, 1987 (2) SCC 707, and referring to the meaning ascribed to the word in Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., it was held that the word 'any' has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate 'all' or 'every' as well as 'some' or 'one' and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject-matter of the statute. The same interpretation of the word 'any' was reiterated by this Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, 1994 (1) SCC, 243 and it was held : "...The word 'any' dictionarily means 'one or some or all'. The use of the word 'any' in the context it has been used in clause (o) indicates that it has been u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be taken to be the average for all the three years for determining the average production. In a case of factory where there was no production in any of the three years during the lean period then the sugar produced between 1st May, 1983 to 30th September, 1983 was to be taken as the average production for exemption from the payment of excise duty. In cases where there was a production in any of the three preceding years then the average had to be calculated by ignoring the periods in which there was no production. Since in this case there is no production in two out of the three years the average has to be the production in one year only. 13.Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on two judgments of the Tribunal, namely, M/s. Kalambar Vibhas Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. Niphad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Pimplas, 1986 (24) E.L.T. 53 (Tribunal) and the judgment of this Court in Saswad Mali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Union of India, [1995 (1) SCC 200]. Neither of these judgments are applicable in the present cases as the question of method of calculation of average production was not an issue in those cases. Moreover, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
