Reasonable excuse for non-application under a reintroduced levy scheme did not bar relief on the stated facts.

Petitioners who had stopped working their centrifugals before the compounded levy scheme was reintroduced and had already cleared the sugar produced before the notification were treated as having a reasonable explanation for not applying to work under the scheme from 1-5-1975. On those facts, the absence of a formal application was not treated as a bar to relief. The operative point is that non-application to the reintroduced scheme did not defeat the claim where the factual circumstances showed the scheme was not being worked and the product had been cleared before the scheme came back into force.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief notwithstanding their non-application to work under the reintroduced compounded levy scheme from 1-5-1975.

Analysis: The petitioners had ceased working their centrifugals before the reintroduction of the scheme and had cleared the sugar produced before the notification bringing the scheme back into force. On those facts, the explanation for not applying to work under the scheme from 1-5-1975 was accepted as reasonable, and the absence of a formal application was not treated as a bar to relief.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to the claimed relief and the non-application under the reintroduced scheme did not defeat their claim.

---