9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification 193. 2.It seems after the said Notification No. 132 subsequent amendment was brought by the Notification No. 193 under which the limitation in granting exemption only to those who had excess production for three consecutive preceding years were eliminated by substituting that even those who had nil production in the preceding three years are also entitled for such exemption. In order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to reproduce relevant portion of the Notification No. 132 of 1982, dated 21st April, 1982. 3.This Notification is issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it stood then read with sub-section (4) of Clause 50 of the Finance Bill, 1982 under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely :- Where production during May to September in all the"4. preceding three sugar years was nil, the entire production during May to September, 1982, will be entitled to the exemption under this notification." 6.Thus by virtue of this substitution even where sugar production in a factory during May to September in all the preceding three years was nil, would be entitled for rebate in the excise duty for the entire production for the period May to September 1982 in terms of Table I to the Notification No. 132. This is also not in dispute if this substituted Notification is applicable to the assessee he would be entitled for exemption. The dispute raised is that this later notification is not retrospective in operation, hence period p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1993 (65) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) = 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 69 (Collector of Central Excise and Ors. v. Neoli Sugar Factory and Ors.), that while interpreting a Notification the underlying object and the purpose of the Notification should be kept in mind. For similar purpose he referred to the case 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 336) (S.C.) = 1968 (3) SCR 21 (South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. etc. v. Union of India & Ors.) (Para 12). He also referred to 1990 (47) E.L.T. 500 (S.C) (U.O.I. v. Wood Papers Ltd.), that an exemption Notification should be liberally construed. We find, keeping this in mind, the Notification in question granting rebate of the excise duty was with an object to give incentive for increasing the production for a period which is known in a su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May to September, 1982 will be exempted.' Appellant case is covered under both parts. Its production in the last three preceding years was nil and in terms of Notification 132 read with this substituted para 4, in terms of 2nd part the entire sugar produced during May to September, 1982 would exempt. Thus the interpretation for revenue cannot be accepted as it defeats the very object of the Notification. 10.Next submission for the revenue is that atleast those assessees who have cleared and paid the excise duty, as the appellant has done, it cannot claim benefit under the amended Notification. We do not find any merit even in this submissions. When Notification granted exemption to such factories which produced in excess of average pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
