1995 (1) TMI 173 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 135/83-CE for calculating average production of sugar.
2. Dispute regarding the period to be considered for computing average production.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 135/83-CE
The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Notification No. 135/83-CE for calculating the average production of sugar. The Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, filed an appeal against the order of Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), where the latter allowed a rebate claim based on a previous decision by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appellant, M/s Vasant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., filed a rebate claim for excess sugar production during a specific period under the said notification. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim, stating that the period without sugar production should be ignored. The appellant argued that only the period in which the factory worked should be considered for calculating the average production, as per the notification. The Tribunal analyzed the wording of the notification and concluded that the period to be considered for computing production should be the period during which the factory operated, not a fixed three-year period. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Assistant Collector's decision, emphasizing the clear language of the notification.

Issue 2: Dispute over the period for computing average production
The crux of the issue was determining the period to be considered for calculating the average production of sugar under Notification No. 135/83-CE. The appellant contended that only the period during which the factory operated should be taken into account, while the respondent argued for a fixed three-year period regardless of production. The Tribunal carefully examined the wording of the notification, which explicitly stated that the period in which sugar was produced should be considered, and the period without production should be ignored. By interpreting the notification's language, the Tribunal concluded that the period for computing production should align with the operational period of the factory. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's decision and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the specificity of the notification's language and its application to the case at hand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the interpretation of Notification No. 135/83-CE, emphasizing that the period for calculating average production of sugar should correspond to the operational period of the factory, as explicitly stated in the notification. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the precise wording of legal provisions in determining the applicability of rebate claims in excise matters.