9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (8) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riods, but reproduced during 1967-68 was leviable to excise duty at a rate prevalent in those years and not in the year 1967-68. But this Annexure the petitioner was required to deposit the differential basic duty amounting to Rs. 16,366. It may be stated that this Annexure is a letter addressed by the Sub-Inspector of Central Excise Range, Mirganj, to the Works Manager of the petitioner-company. The petitioner filed an appeal against annexure '2' which has been disposed of under Annexure '3', and it has been held by the Collector of Excise that the demand made by the Sub-Inspector of Central Excise is correct. The petitioner, thereafter, went in revision before the Central Government. A copy of the Order of the Central Government rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sucrose content thereof was more than 90% it was not open to the petitioner to claim the exemption. The Order-in-Revision also emphasised the same fact and it was held that the sugar which was reprocessed cannot be said to be produced in the year 1967-68. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities had not taken correct view of the law in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to claim exemption. Reliance was placed on two decisions of this Court in Messrs Rohtas Industries Limited, Dalmianagar v. The Union of India and others (C.W.J.C. No. 441 of 1969 disposed of on 11th February, 1972) and Shree Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd. v. The Union of India and others (C.W.J.C. No. 1838 of 1970 disposed of on 11th Jan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch as sugar cane also by reprocessing defective sugar. It thus contended that the stand of the respondents was opposite to the stand that is now taken in this case. Without expressing any opinion whether the stand taken is contrary or not, it is clear that so far as C.W.J.C. 1838/70 is concerned, it was held that the reprocessing of the sugar also amounted to production of sugar. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents emphasised that the relevant notification relates to exemption of sugar produced from 1st October, 1967 from basic excise duty to the extent indicated in the notification. The expression 'production', according to him, meant the produce that obtained by going through the entire process which resulted in the production of sug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
