1988 (8) TMI 113 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses incentive rebate application under Central Excise Notification; petitioner's procedural failure cited.

The court dismissed the application for incentive rebate under Central Excise Notification No. 146/74, citing the petitioner's failure to follow statutory ... Sugar - Excess production - Incentive rebate Issues:Claim for incentive rebate under Central Excise Notification rejection, Failure to follow statutory procedure, Delay in seeking remedy, Interpretation of Notification provisions.Analysis:The petitioner, a sugar factory, made incentive rebate claims under Central Excise Notification No. 146/74, which were rejected in 1975. Despite being informed of the appeal/revision procedure, the petitioner did not pursue it until filing a writ petition in 1981. The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, and the delay in seeking remedy after 1975 should lead to dismissal of the petition. The court noted the petitioner's request for additional time to file a supplementary affidavit, which was granted but not utilized, and subsequent absence during hearings.The main contention of the petitioner was based on Notification No. 146/74, which exempted sugar from certain excise duties based on production criteria. The petitioner's claim was based on misinterpretation of the notification provisions regarding average production calculation. The court analyzed the amended notification and held that the petitioner's claim was erroneous as they did not produce sugar in specific years, affecting the average production calculation. Referring to relevant case laws, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the rebate as claimed. The court emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures and timely pursuit of remedies.The court dismissed the application, citing reasons for rejection. Firstly, the petition was highly belated, and secondly, the petitioner did not avail themselves of appropriate remedies under the Act. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the rebate claimed under the Notification provisions. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory procedures, timely pursuit of remedies, and correct interpretation of legal provisions. The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.