Plain-language construction of exemption notifications governs average production, and writ jurisdiction remains open for pure interpretation disputes.

An exemption notification must be applied according to its plain language: where it directed exclusion of sugar years with nil production, the phrase could not be expanded to treat only nil monthly periods as excluded. On that construction, average production was correctly computed by dividing the total by five, and the rebate assessment stood on that basis. The availability of appellate or revisional remedies did not bar writ jurisdiction where the dispute turned on interpretation of the notification and no controverted facts required investigation. The rebate order was left undisturbed and the writ petition was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on the terms of the exemption notification governing sugar duty, the respondent factory was required to exclude years in which production was nil only for the relevant months or for the entire sugar year, so that average production had to be computed by dividing the total by 2 instead of 5; (ii) whether the respondent had an alternative statutory remedy so as to bar recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether, on the terms of the exemption notification governing sugar duty, the respondent factory was required to exclude years in which production was nil only for the relevant months or for the entire sugar year, so that average production had to be computed by dividing the total by 2 instead of 5.

Analysis: The notification defined "sugar year" as a twelve-month period and provided that where production in one or more sugar years was nil, such sugar year or years were to be ignored while computing average production. The respondent's factory had no nil production for the entire sugar year in the relevant years; only the October-November period was nil in some years. The language of the notification could not be rewritten by inserting words that were not there, and the expression had to be applied as drafted.

Conclusion: The respondent was correctly entitled to compute the average production by dividing the total by 5, and the rebate claim was rightly assessed on that basis, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent had an alternative statutory remedy so as to bar recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The dispute turned on interpretation of the exemption notification and did not require investigation into controverted questions of fact. In the circumstances, the existence of appellate or revisional provisions under the excise law did not preclude invocation of writ jurisdiction for relief.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to maintain the writ petition under Article 226, and the objection based on alternative remedy failed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected because the exemption notification was construed in the respondent's favour and the writ petition was maintainable, leaving the rebate order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be construed according to its plain language, without adding words to supply a supposed deficiency, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the dispute is one of legal interpretation rather than disputed fact.

---