Plain-language tax notification interpretation excludes nil-production periods from the exemption averaging formula.

A taxing exemption notification was construed according to its plain language, and clause (3) required periods of nil sugar production in any of the three base years to be ignored when computing average production. The Court held that earlier decisions on different notifications could not control this wording, and it refused to supply any omission or apply reading down where the provision was clear. The exemption was therefore to be calculated only on periods when sugar was actually produced, and nil-production years were not to be included in the averaging formula.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the notification dated 30-4-1983, the period in which sugar was not produced in any of the three base years had to be ignored while computing the average production for exemption from excise duty.

Analysis: Clause (3) of the notification specifically provided that where production was nil in any of the three sugar years, the average production for the corresponding period was to be determined by taking into account only the periods in which sugar was actually produced, and the periods of non-production were to be ignored. The wording left no ambiguity and could not be read as if the nil-production years had to be counted in the average. Earlier decisions dealing with different notifications could not control the present case because each notification had to be construed according to its own language. In a taxing notification, the Court declined to supply any omission or apply reading down where the provision was clear.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to have the nil-production years included in the averaging formula, and the exemption was to be computed in accordance with clause (3) of the notification.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on interpretation of the exemption notification and the challenge to the excise computation was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear taxing notification must be given effect according to its plain language, and where it expressly directs that nil-production periods be ignored, the Court will not rewrite the provision or invoke reading down to alter the exemption formula.

---