1991 (4) TMI 467 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal Partially Granted: Reassessment Ordered for Excise Duty Relief Eligibility Based on Accurate Production Interpretation.

Manglam Cement Co. Ltd. and Ors. Versus Assistant Collector and Ors.

The HC partially allowed the appeal, setting aside prior decisions, and directed the Assistant Collector to reevaluate the appellant's eligibility for ... - Issues:Interpretation of the word 'production' in a notification for excise duty relief.Determining the eligibility of a company for excise duty relief based on the commencement of commercial production.Jurisdiction of the Court in going into disputed questions of fact in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against a judgment in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant, a cement manufacturing company, claimed excise duty relief under various notifications issued by the Government of India. The dispute centered around the interpretation of the word 'production' in the notifications and the eligibility criteria based on the commencement of commercial production by the appellant.The appellant contended that they were entitled to excise duty relief as a new unit starting commercial production after 1.1.1982. They relied on a letter from the Joint Cement Controller fixing the date of commercial production as 2.1.1982. However, the Assistant Collector of Customs rejected their claim, stating that the appellant had commenced production in 1981 and was not eligible for relief under the notifications.The Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection, emphasizing that the appellant had started production before 1.1.1982 and was maintaining records since 1981. The Single Judge held that 'production' in the notification referred to commercial production and concluded that the appellant had commenced production before 1.1.1982, thus not qualifying for relief.The Court considered the arguments of both parties and opined that the Single Judge should not have delved into the disputed fact of when commercial production began. It was determined that the authorities had not properly considered the date of commercial production while rejecting the appellant's claim. The Court directed the Assistant Collector to reevaluate the applicability of the notification based on the commencement of commercial production by the appellant within three months, allowing the appellant a fair opportunity to prove their case.In conclusion, the Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside previous decisions and instructing a reevaluation of the appellant's eligibility for excise duty relief based on the correct date of commercial production. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting legal terms accurately and ensuring proper consideration of relevant facts in determining eligibility for statutory benefits.