9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (5) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 26-11-1976 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Delhi. The Revision Application having been transferred to the Tribunal as Appeal under Section 35P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, hereinafter referred as the Act, is being disposed of as such. 2. The Company engaged in the manufacture of sugar falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 1(1) claimed and received a rebate of Central Excise Duty amounting to ₹ 7,64,840/- in respect of sugar produced in its Factory during the period from 1st December, 1973 to 30th June, 1974 in terms of Notification No. 189/73-C.E., dated 4th October 1973 as subsequently amended by Notification No.78/74-CE dated 4th October 1973 as subsequently amended any Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealt with the interpretation of Notification No. 189/73-C.E., dated 4th October, 1973 as amended by Notification No. 78/74 C.E., on 20th April, 1974. The leading judgment is that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Etikoppaka Cooperative Agricultural Society Ltd, Darlapudi, Petitioner v. Union of India and Others, Respondents, cited as 1979 Tax L.R. 2454. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court after reproducing the Notification No. 189/73 in extenso, observed that on the basis of the clarifications issued in the earlier ears, it was assumed by the sugar manufacturers as well as the Central Excise officials that a sugar manufacturer who worked his factory during the previous year, i.e. base period, but did not produce any Sugar d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 28th of July, 1976. We do not propose to go into great details because all aspects of the case have been dealt with by the said Hon'ble High Court. Their Lordships also noticed the Patna High Court judgment in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 865 of 1976 [as mentioned in para 6 of the judgment in Etikoppaka Co-operative Agricultural Society Ltd., case supra,] but held that the view taken therein that if there was no manufacture in the corresponding months of the base year, exemption was not permissible as per Notification No. 189/73, was not correct. 9. For the Company, Shri T.C. Seth, Advocate, appearing, brought to our notice that the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment came to be followed by a division Bench of the Hon'ble Punja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the Patna High Court had held that in a case where there was nil production in the corresponding period, the exemption in respect of excess production would not be admissible. The decision of the Patna High Court has been noticed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the decisions cited above. Both the Courts have disagreed with the view of the Patna High Court. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana High Courts." 11. From the above, it transpires that the Patna High Court Judgment was viewed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as also by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
