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

1999 (4) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for such exemption, it cannot be defeated merely on the ground that such factory has already paid the duty for the period in question. Even if duty is paid under ignorance of law or otherwise, if by subsequent legislation or valid Notifications the obligation to pay the duty is withdrawn, it cannot be refused since he has already paid the duty. The present appeal has merit which is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders of the Tribunal dated 29th October, 1985 is hereby quashed and we hold that the appellant is entitled for the rebate under the substituted Notification No. 193/82, dated 11th June, 1982 even for a period of 1st May till 11th June, 1982. - 122 of 1986 - - - Dated:- 13-4-1999 - A.P. Misra and R.P. Sethi, JJ. [ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... producing factory which during the period commencing from 1st May, 1982 and ending on 30th day of September, 1982 produces sugar in excess over the average production of the corresponding three preceding sugar years. Para 4 of the Notification exclude from this benefit to such sugar factories whose production during the period mentioned in Column 1 of the said Table in the preceding three years was nil. Relevant portion of para 4 is quoted hereunder : 4. Nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to a sugar factory where production during the period mentioned in Column 1 of the said Table, during all preceding three sugar years was nil. 5.As this Notification stood in April, 1982, assessee was not entitled for any exemption. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion the sugar production was in excess of the average sugar production. The period to which we are concerned is the period commencing from 1st May and ending on 11th June, 1982. However, the Tribunal in view of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules declined the relief to the appellant. It held rate of duty would be what is payable on the date of clearance of the excisable goods for consumption. Revenue granted relief to the assessee for the period from 11th June, 1982 when Notification 192 came into force but rejected for the preceding period, in view of the stand and the interpretation which they applied as aforesaid. For the assessee the stand is the very Notification 192, dated 11th June, 1982 records to grant rebate for the entire excess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ective of this Notification is by conferring rebate in excise duty, an incentive is given to a factory for increasing the sugar production during the lean period. It is with this in mind now we proceed to scrutinize the two Notifications. The only question is, whether benefit under Notification 192, dated 11-6-1982 is to be understood only from the date on which this Notification came into force or for the entire period preceding that date which is conferred under Notification No. 132. We find significantly the language used in the second Notification is For para 4, following paragraph shall be substituted . It is significant while substituting this paragraph 4 on the 11th June, 1982, it admits to confer rebate for the period preceding the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... annot be refused since he has already paid the duty. If duty paid is shown to be not leviable or entitled for rebate the revenue has to refund, adjust, credit such amount to the assessee, as the case may be. 11.Hence for the reasons recorded above, we conclude that the present appeal has merit which is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders of the Tribunal dated 29th October, 1985 is hereby quashed and we hold that the appellant is entitled for the rebate under the substituted Notification No. 193/82, dated 11th June, 1982 even for a period of 1st May till 11th June, 1982. Consequently, if the amount has already been credited to the appellant it shall not be withdrawn, if not, shall be credited to it. 12.Appeal is allowed with costs .....

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