1988 (6) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notification 132/82 and Notification 135/83 regarding calculation of average sugar production.

In this judgment, the main issue revolves around the interpretation of Notification 132/82 and Notification 135/83 concerning the calculation of average sugar production. The controversy specifically focuses on whether the period with no sugar production in any of the preceding three years should be excluded or included in determining the average production for the relevant period. The appellants argue that the average should include all three years' production periods, even if there was no production in one of the years, while the Department contends that the period with nil production should be disregarded. The dispute arises from differing interpretations of the notifications, leading to conflicting calculations of average production.

The appellants rely on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Shakti Sugar Ltd., which interpreted Notification 146/74, dated 12-10-1974. On the other hand, the Department cites the Tribunal's decision in CCE, Aurangabad v. Niphad SSK Ltd., which involved Notification 132/82. Both sides present contrasting legal precedents to support their arguments, highlighting the importance of consistent interpretation of similar notifications to avoid discrepancies in legal application.

To address the controversy, the Tribunal examines the relevant portions of the notifications, particularly comparing the language and provisions of Notification 146/74 with Notification 132/82 and Notification 135/83. The Tribunal observes that while under Notification 146/74, only years with entirely no production were excluded from the average calculation, subsequent notifications like 132/82 and 135/83 mandated the exclusion of periods with nil production within a year. This distinction in wording and intent between the notifications clarifies the methodology for calculating average production and guides the Tribunal's decision-making process.

Ultimately, the Tribunal aligns with the precedent set in the Niphad SSK case, where it was established that under Notification 132/82 and 135/83, periods with zero production in a year must be disregarded when calculating average production. By following the reasoning and ratio decidendi of the Niphad SSK judgment, the Tribunal rejects the appeals presented in this case, emphasizing the importance of consistent interpretation and application of statutory notifications to ensure uniformity and fairness in legal outcomes.