9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, exempting sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on the 1st day of May, 1982, and ending with the 30th day of September, 1982, which is in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years. The exact nature of exemption from the duty of excise and special duty of excise [the latter was leviable in terms of clause 50(4) of the Finance Bill, 1982, read with the declaration in the Bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931], was specified separately for free sale sugar and levy sugar" and these two terms were defined. Para 4 of the notification, on which the dispute before us turns, read thus- Nothing contained i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a submission before the Assistant Collector, Ahmednagar, claiming the balance amount of the rebate claimed. The contention was that the rebate was permissible in terms of the notification on the excess production of sugar and was not dependent on the clearances. As such, the rebate claim in respect of the excess production cleared during the period prior to 11-6-1982 which appeared to have been disallowed by the Superintendent was admissible. On this, the Assistant Collector, Ahmednagar, passed an order on 22-10-1983 disallowing the claim basing his decision on the Pune Central Excise Collectorate Trade Notice No. 199/1982 (No. 14/Sugar/1982) dated 25-10-1982. This Trade Notice said that in respect of sugar factories which were not eligi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cited was that of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Neelam Prints v. Dy. Supdt. of Central Excise and Ors.- 1978 E.L.T. 895, which followed the Supreme Court s decision in the Cannanore Mills case (supra). The Collector (Appeals), submitted Shri Ohri, fell into error because he merely based his decision on the aspect of the binding effect or otherwise of Trade Notices without considering the aforesaid decisions. 6. Replying, Shri S.P. Kampani, learned Consultant for the respondent, submitted that Notification 193/82 did not make any substantive change in the parent Notification 132/82. It only brought out the intention of the parent notification more clearly. The latter did not at all refer to clearances. On the other hand, it confe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent became eligible for the benefit of Notification 132/82. On the face of it, there is nothing to suggest that Notification 193/82 had any retrospective effect. It could not have had any retrospective effect in accordance with the ratio of the Supreme Court s decision in the Cannanore Mills case (supra). There is no dispute about the position that the quantity of sugar in respect of which rebate was denied by the Assistant Collector was attributable to the excess production of sugar during the period commencing 1-5-1982. In accordance with Central Excise Rule 9A, the rate of duty depends on the date of clearance of excisable goods for home consumption and is the rate in force on that date. During the period 1-5-1982 to 10-6-1982, admittedl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
