9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners challenged the legality of the demand notice issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 7,21,827/-. The demand has been raised on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly allowed excise rebate in the like amount under the relevant notification dated 28th September, 1972. 2. In the exercise of power conferred under sub-rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed during the period commencing from the 1st day of December, 1971 and ending with the 30th day of April, 1972 exemption was fixed at Rs. 20/- per quintal. 3. There was, however, a proviso added to the table which stated that exemption under the said notification shall not be admissible to a factory which did not work during the base year. The base year was defined in the notification as meaning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October and November, 1971. The point is whether a sugar factory which has not produced sugar during the whole of the base period, as defined in the said notification, but only during a part of it would become disentitled to claim excise rebate in terms of the aforesaid notification. The question came up for consideration before this court in the case of M/s. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. U.O.I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification. The said decision is directly in point and completely covers the controversy. 5. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have conceded that except for Rs. 3,13,827/- the rebate was rightly allowed to the petitioner. It may be added that the petitioner was initially allowed the rebate of Rs. 7,33,827/-. Subsequently by the impugned demand the department took the stand that the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the controversy is the one dated 28th September, 1972. In terms of that notification the petitioner clearly became entitled to the rebate which was rightly allowed to it in the beginning. It was only as a result of a failure to conceive the true implications of this notification and the proviso thereto that the Department was illegally raising the demand for the refund of the amount previousl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
