9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sugar, described in column (1) of the Table below and falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from so much of the duty of excise and special duty of excise leviable thereon as is specified in the corresponding entry in columns (2) and (3) of the said Table. TABLE Description of sugar Duty of excise and special duty of excise Free sale sugar Levy sugar (1) (2) (3) Sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on the 1st day of May, 1982, and ending with the 30th day of September, 1982, which is in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years. (Rupees per quintal) 40.00 24.50 * * * * Explanation :- In this notification- * * * * 2. In computing the production of sugar during the period mentioned in column (1) of the Table in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction in 1982 was 82,795.26 minus 23,514.11 or 59,281.15 quintals, on which the respondents were entitled to a rebate of ₹ 17,73,978.50. 4. As against this, according to the Assistant Collector, the respondents did not have any production of sugar during May-July, 1981, Therefore, both the periods May-July 1980 and May-July, 1981 had to be ignored in terms of Explanation 3, and the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years was the same as the actual production in May-July, 1979, namely, 44,768.22 quintals. The net excess production, thus, came to 82,795.26 minus 44,768.22 or 38,027.04 quintals. This quantity, after making some adjustment and deducting re-processing losses, was brought down to 37,082.30 quintals. According to the Assistant Collector this was the quantity on which the rebate was admissible, the admissible amount being ₹ 9,93,740.10. Thus, the controversy centres round the production in May-July, 1981. 5. In support of his decision, the Assistant Collector informed the respondents as follows, in his letter dated 16-2-1984 :- In this connection it is to inform you that 2260 qtls. sugar was produced in Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered in the R.G. 1 register only when it is bagged, and the bagging depends upon convenience, labour and efficiency of the factory. It may even be postponed. If it is postponed, and production is allocated to the month in which the sugar is bagged, the real position would not be represented by the R.G. 1 register. 8. Shri Sachar, the learned representative of the Department who appeared before us, reiterated the above grounds. He also drew our attention to a notice issued by the respondents in which it has been stated that the factory was finally closed on 28-4-1981 at 4 A.M. (This notice is not included in the papers filed before us, but has been referred to therein). Shri Sachar also submitted that in Notification No. 132/82 the requirement that the data furnished in form R.G. 1 should be adopted had reference to the production between May and September, 1982 against which rebate was to be given, and not to the production in the corresponding periods of the preceding years. 9. On behalf of the respondents, certified extracts of a number of registers and statements, such as the R.G. 1 register and the R.G. 6 register, have been filed. For the purpose of our discussion it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished in the form R.G. 1 shall be adopted. A point was, no doubt, raised by Shri Sachar that the reliance on the data in the R.G. 1 form was prescribed only for computing the production of sugar from May to September,1982, and not for computing the production in the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years. On a literal interpretation of the wording, this may be so. However, it appears to us that it could not be the intention, nor would it be correct, to adopt a different basis for computing the production of preceding years. The rebate was essentially based on a comparison of production in the current year with the production in the corresponding period of the preceding three years. Any comparison, to be correct, has to be between like quantities, or quantities computed on the same basis. It would be illogical to say that production during the current period should be based on one type of data and production during the corresponding period of the preceding three years should be based on a different type of data. We also find that in similar notifications issued for earlier periods e.g. Notification No. 173/81 for the period 28-10-1981 to 30-11-81, and Notification N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
