9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry facts of the case for decision of the writ petition are as under : In order to encourage and maximizing the production of sugar, the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 issued a notification dated 4-10-1973. The said notification was amended by another notification, dated 20-4-1974. Portions relevant for the purposes of the present case of the aforesaid notifications are being reproduced below :- "BHARAT SARKAR VITTA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI DATED THE 4TH OCTOBER, 1973 . NOTIFICATION CENTRAL EXCISE G.S.R. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts sugar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ .. .. Explanation . - In this notification, the expression 'base period' means the period commencing from the 1st day of October, 1972, and ending with the 30th day of September, 1973. ........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ . . "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73, there was no production as such 27,357 quintals of sugar produced in the months of May and June was excess production on which rebate was admissible under the aforesaid notifications at Rs. 40/- per quintal. 5. The aforementioned claim submitted by the petitioner Company was allowed and the petitioner Company was granted a rebate of Rs. 10,94,280/-. Subsequent thereto a notice, dated 22-12-1976 was served on the petitioner by the Range Officer of Central Excise, Roorkee to explain as to why the amount of rebate given to the petitioner may not be recovered back under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioners contested the said notice. Ultimately by the impugned order, the demand has been confirmed and the petitioner Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner's factory did not work. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner's factory did work in the preceding base period, as defined in the Explanation to the notification, is not in dispute and as such the petitioner Company was clearly entitled for the rebate. 8. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1983 Excise Law Times, page 205 (Allahabad). The notifications involved for consideration in this case were almost similar in nature and the Explanation and the proviso were also similar to the proviso and the Explanation given in the present notifications. This Court took the view that if the petitioner's factory did not prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
