Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rebate under the excise notification was admissible to a sugar factory that had no production during the corresponding period in the base year, and whether the proviso to the notification permitted rebate on excess production in the sugar year despite such nil production.
Analysis: The notification granted rebate only for sugar produced in the relevant period of the sugar year in excess of the production during the corresponding sub-period in the base year. The proviso, properly construed, did not enlarge the substantive grant under Items 1 to 4 but only excluded factories that had not worked during the base period as a whole. Rebate depended on actual production in the corresponding base sub-period and a comparison of excess production in the sugar year. Nil production in the corresponding period could not satisfy that requirement, and the explanation defining the base period did not alter the substantive condition for rebate.
Conclusion: Rebate was not admissible where there was nil production in the corresponding base period, and the assessees were not entitled to claim rebate on that basis.
Ratio Decidendi: A proviso cannot be used to cut down or rewrite the clear substantive condition in the main notification, and rebate for excess production is available only when there is production in the corresponding base period against which excess can be measured.