1992 (2) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4/- in respect of excess production of sugar during the period May 1978 to September, 1978 under Notification No. 108/78 dated 28-4-1978. On receipt of the rebate claim, the Superintendent of Central Excise concerned worked out the rebate and a credit of Rs. 83,570.78 was allowed to the respondents. The respondents protested and represented to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bareilly. From the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector it appears that the appellants raised the following three contentions :- 1. Contention in their letter dated 4-3-1980 that excess sugar in respect of which the rebate had been earned was cleared in the month of July, 1978 when the incidence of duty was higher than that of rebate notified .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of certain quantity on account of re-processing loss was correctly done by the Assistant Collector; and 3. The deduction of amount by way of recovery, which was stayed was also incorrect and should not have been done. 3.1 With these aforesaid observations, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the Order of the Assistant Collector with the direction for recalculating and sanctioning the amount of rebate in the light of the observations made by him, as stated above, vide his impugned Order-in-Appeal. 4. Against that Order of the Collector (Appeals), the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 5. Arguing on behalf of the appellants, Shri L.C. Chakraborty, learned SDR, submitted that it is settled law that rebate can never exceed the actual .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt Collector which relate to the deduction of amount by way of recovery observing that the deduction of amount by way of recovering, which was stayed was also incorrect and should not have been done and, therefore, to this extent the impugned Order-in-Appeal is to be upheld. He also cited the case of Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, 1985 (22) E.L.T. 831. 6. We have considered the submissions. On the strength of the said authorities cited at the Bar, we agree with the learned SDR that under Notification No. 108/78 no exemption could be claimed exceeding the amount of duty otherwise payable. In other words, the respondents could be entitled to rebate or exemption qua the amount of duty actually p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X