Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1979 (11) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 leviable thereon as is specified in the corresponding entry in columns (3) and (4J of the said Table. TABLE Sl. Description of Sugar Duty of Excise Free Sale Sugar Levy Sugar (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. Sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on the first day of Oct., 1974 and ending with the 30th day of November, 1974 in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding five sugar years in respect of which : (a) The overall production of the factory for the entire year sugar year does not equal the average production of the preceding five sugar years. Rs. 60/- per quintal Rs. 16/- per quintal (b) The overall production of the factory for the entire sugar year equals or exceeds the average production of the preceding five sugar years. Rs. 82/- per quintal Rs. 22/- per quintal 2. Sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on the 1st .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tance and the rebate was allowed. However, on 14-11-1975, a demand was made that the allowance that had been made was not correct and it was excessive and not in accordance with the notification and the company was asked to refund the amount as stated therein. Even in a subsequent correspondence on 3-4-1976, the Collector of Central Excise stated that the matter was still under consideration by the Union Government. However, by a communication dated 1-7-1976, the petitioner was directed to refund the amount immediately and an order for detention of sugar was also issued. It is at this stage that this writ petition was filed. Rule nisi was issued and an interim order of stay was made which was subsequently modified the effect of which was that the goods that were detained were released on certain conditions. 4. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the notification is clear that the excess production during the relevant year over the average production of the previous five years was entitled to the rebate and the notification prescribed slabs in accordance with which rebate had to be allowed and accordingly rebate at particular rates on 7.5 per cent of this excess and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es (a) to (e). The notification after specifying that the exemption is granted to sugar produced which is in excess of the average production goes on to day..., that is, (a) on excess production upto 7.5% (b) on excess production on the next 10% (c) on excess production beyond 37.5%. 4. Reading the various clauses as a whole, the express intention would appear to be to give a large exemption, to greater production. In other words, the greater the increase in the production, the higher would be the exemption. Thus clause (a) gives exemption on excess production upto 7.5%. The quantum of exemption steadily increases till clause (e) grants an exemption on excess production beyond 37.5%. In other words, the exemption is granted on the excess production upto a certain percentage. This excess can only be calculated with reference to the average production. It is clear that the rates of percentages are to be calculated with reference to the average production which is exceeded." 5. So far as the submission made in the objection statement in regard to the object with which this allowance was being made, namely, to afford an incentive for higher production, no exemption can be tak .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The entire matter is governed wholly by the language of the notification. If the tax payer is within the plain terms of the exemption it cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority." In that case, certain exemption had been allowed in regard to cotton fabrics manufactured by co-operative societies. The appellant before the Supreme Court had got the cotton fabrics manufactured by the co-operative societies, and he was the owner of the cotton fabrics. The contention of the department was that the cotton fabrics having not been manufactured by the co-operative society `for itself', the exemption was unavailable. The Supreme Court interpreting the relevant clause held that on a true construction what was required for claiming exemption was that the cotton fabrics must have been produced on powerlooms owned by the co-operative society and there was no further requirement that the fabrics must be produced by the co-operative society on the powerlooms 'for itself'. 7. The words used in the instant case do not suggest any contrary intention other than that the relief would have to be granted in regard to certain percentages of the e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0-74 must also have been as originally interpreted by the Government of India itself to grant rebate at the different rates provided for in the notification dated 12-10-74 in respect of different slabs of excess production without reference to the percentage which each of the slabs bears to be average production in the preceding five years". In this part of the judgment, the learned Judge was referring to a letter dated 1-11-1972 addressed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to one of the Writ Petitioners in the cases before him. The view I have expressed above is in accord with the view expressed in the judgment of the High Court of Madras and I fully agree with the reasoning in that judgment. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended before me that the provisions of rule 10 had not been followed and no show cause notice had been issued and the demand made would be not in accordance with law and the demand made would be barred by limitation. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to consider these submissions in the view I have taken on the main contention and therefore I refrain from expressing any opinion in regard to these submissions. 11. There is a furt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates