2005 (3) TMI 119 - SC - Central Excise

Sugar - Rebate on production - whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the concessional rates of levy of excise duty under Notification 193/82, dated 11-6-1982 for the entire production during May to September 1982 - Held that - there is really no question of the second Notification operating retrospectively. The sugar year according to the Notifications commenced on 1st October and ended with 30th September of the year following. Therefore, both the Notifications came into force during the sugar year in question. The period of benefit was the same. Therefore, even if the sugar factories like the appellant were covered by the benefit of the Notification for the first time on 1-6-1982, nevertheless they would be entitled for the benefit for the period 1st May, 1982 to 30th September 1982. The decision of the Tribunal is accordingly set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Entitlement to concessional rates of excise duty under Notification 193/82 for production during May to September 1982.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Supreme Court revolved around the entitlement of the appellant, a sugar factory, to the benefit of concessional rates of excise duty under Notification 193/82 for the period from May to September 1982.

2. The appellant's claim for the benefit was initially denied by the excise authorities on the basis that the second Notification, which extended the benefit to sugar factories, came into effect on 11-6-1982.

3. The appellant relied on a previous decision of the Court in Belapur Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, where it was held that a similar substitution of exclusionary clause by an inclusionary one entitled the assessee to the benefit of the Notification for the relevant period.

4. The respondents argued against the retrospective effect of the Notification, citing the decision in Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin, which emphasized no retrospective operation of notifications.

5. The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and legal precedents, concluded that there was no retrospective operation of the second Notification. The Court noted that both Notifications came into force within the same sugar year, and the benefit period was the same, thus entitling the appellant to the benefit from 1st May, 1982 to 30th September 1982.

6. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and directed the authorities to process the appellant's claim in accordance with the law, as there was no dispute regarding the facts in question.

7. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, affirming their entitlement to the concessional rates of excise duty for the specified period under Notification 193/82.