9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Shri P.S. Chakravarthy, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per: C.T.A. Pillai]. - In this application under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, arising out of the Tribunal's Order dated 21-5-85 (Annexure A), the applicant has required us to refer to the High Court the following questions: 1. Whether the party was eligible for rebate because the factory did not exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te claim was rejected as inadmissible by his Order No.C.V/1/8/4/83 - INS (Sl.No.35/83) dated 24-5-83 (Annexure C). On appeal by the respondents to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, the Collector set aside the order of the Assistant Collector with the following findings: "The issue in this case lies within a narrow compass involves interpretation of the Notification No. 132/82 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rked for a lesser period in the corresponding periods during the preceding three sugar years the average production is to be arrived at by dividing the production by such period. This interpretation is based on a plain reading of Notification No. 132/82 dated 21-11-82. Further, the Bombay High Court in the case of Balasaheb Desai Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Limited while deciding writ petition No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector (Appeals) has gone by the ratio of a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of 'Balasaheb Desai Sahakari Sakhare Karkhane Ltd.' in writ petition No.1069 of 1979 - 1982 E.L.T. 866 - interpreting a notification worded somewhat similarly. No particular reasons are forthcoming as to why the view held by the Collector (Appeals), following the guidance found in the decision of the Bomba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m would serve the purpose and accordingly refer the following question to the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Karnataka :- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, with specific reference to the non-existence of the factory for a part of the three years period relevant to Notification No.132/82-CE. dated 21.4.82, the Tribunal was right in holding that the benefit was available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
