9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (5) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector 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 No. 78/74-CE dated 20th April, 1974. The follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 63,280/- allowed on the sugar produced during May-June 1974 was not admissible and that the amount was recoverable under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Though the Company resisted, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of ₹ 63,280/- as recoverable. The Appellate Collector also dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Notification No. 189/73-Supra did not warrant that even if there was no production or there was nil production in the corresponding period, the exemption/rebate claim was admissible on the total production. 5. We have several judgments now which 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly, 1976, the Government of India reversed its previous interpretation of the Notifications regarding eligibility for rebate where production during the relevant periods of the base year was nil. Holding that such rebate was wrongly allowed, instructions were issued to recover amounts. 8. Before the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, it was contended that the interpretation of the Government in relation to Notification No. 189/73 supra on the basis of which rebates were allowed was correct in contradistinction to later interpretation projecting from the trade Notice No. 181/76, dated 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 L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice. A copy of the judgment has been filed. The judgment is cited as 1983 E.L.T. 205 All. We find that in this judgment the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court has been endorsed in preference to the decision of Hon ble Patna High Court. We like to notice Para 7 of the judgment of project that the Punjab Haryana High Court s judgment was also in their Lordships focus :- 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, brought to our notice a decision of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 865 of 1966 wherein while interpreting similar provision, 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 no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
