9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s being, Notification No. 203/C.E., dated 28-9-1972. 2. The Central Government by virtue of the aforesaid notification had provided for relief to some sugar factories for different periods on some quantity of sugar produced during a given period in excess of the production, in the corresponding period, as mentioned in different parts of the notification. So far as the present matter is concerned, the rebate was claimed for the months of October and November, 1972 in terms of part I of the aforesaid notification and a sum of ₹ 6,87,600 was allowed to be adjusted by way of rebate by the concerned authorities in pursuance of the claim lodged by the party, for such rebate, on the ground that their production during the months of Octobe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and not in the case of there being no production at all. Thus the adjudication order of the Assistant Collector confirming the demand for recovery of ₹ 6,87,600 was confirmed. The contention that the demand could be raised only under Rule 10 was also rejected, observing that Rule 10 pre- supposed some assessment, and refund as a result thereof and not the case of rebate and consequently, the only rule applicable was Rule 10A, which did not provide any time-limit for raising the demand for refund. The appeal was thus dismissed in its entirety. 6. The party went in revision to the Central Government which stands transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the provision under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to bring out the distinction between the case covered by the present appeal, vis-a-vis the reported judgments, by contending that in those cases there was at least some production, and those were not cases of absolutely no production, and consequently ratio of those cases would not apply in this case. 10. Shri G. Koruthu addressed a short rejoinder by pointing out that the Allahabad High Court specifically dealt with this notification, and the point as to eligibility of the benefit thereof, in spite of their being nil production during corresponding period. He also reiterated emphatically his contention about the notice being barred by time, and the lower authority having gone wrong in applying Rule 10A when according to him only r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
