2005 (3) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is really no question of the second Notification operating retrospectively. The "sugar year" according to the Notifications commenced on 1st October and ended with 30th September of the year following. Therefore, both the Notifications came into force during the sugar year in question. The period of benefit was the same. Therefore, even if the sugar factories like the appellant were covered by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncessional rates of excise duty but, by virtue of Paragraph 4 of that Notification, excluded sugar factories from the purview of the benefit. 3. The appellant is a sugar factory. Because the second Notification extended the benefit to sugar factories, the appellant put in a rebate claim before the excise authorities in respect of its production from May to September 1982. This was denied by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ustoms and Central Excise, Cochin and Others reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 375). 6. In our opinion there is really no question of the second Notification operating retrospectively. The "sugar year" according to the Notifications commenced on 1st October and ended with 30th September of the year following. Therefore, both the Notifications came into force during the sugar year in question. The p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X