1988 (3) TMI 86 - HC - Central Excise

Karnataka HC: Sugar factories entitled to rebates if excess sugar produced in comparison year.

UNION OF INDIA Versus MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD.

The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the Central Government, holding that sugar factories are entitled to rebates only if they produced sugar during ... Sugar excess production incentive rebate - Interpretation of statute - Proviso - Effect of Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the notification dated 4-10-1973 (Annexure A) as amended by the notification dated 20-4-1974 (Annexure B).2. Admissibility of rebate on excise duty for sugar production during the period 1-10-1973 to 30-9-1974.3. Effect of the proviso to the notification on the quantum of rebate.4. Conflicting judgments from other High Courts regarding the interpretation of the proviso.5. Definition and relevance of 'base year' and 'sugar year' in relation to the claim for rebate.6. Validity of the notices issued in 1976 demanding the refund of rebates.7. The legal effect of the proviso on the main provisions of the notification.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the Notification:The appeals revolve around the interpretation of the notification dated 4-10-1973 (Annexure A) as amended by the notification dated 20-4-1974 (Annexure B). These notifications, issued by the Central Government under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, granted a rebate on excise duty for sugar produced during the period 1-10-1973 to 30-9-1974. The interpretation of the proviso to this notification is crucial to determine the quantum of rebate admissible to sugar factories.2. Admissibility of Rebate:The Central Government's policy aimed to encourage sugar production during lean periods by allowing a rebate on the excise duty for sugar produced in excess of the base year's production. The base year is defined as the period from 1st October 1972 to 30th September 1973, and the sugar year is the subsequent year (1st October 1973 to 30th September 1974). The notification outlined specific periods and corresponding rebate rates for excess sugar production.3. Effect of the Proviso:The proviso to the notification states that the exemption mentioned against serial numbers 1 to 4 shall not be admissible to a factory that did not work during the base period. The interpretation of the term 'did not work' is pivotal. The Andhra Pradesh High Court's interpretation suggested that even if a factory did not produce sugar during the corresponding period in the base year, it could still claim a rebate if it produced sugar during the relevant period in the sugar year. This interpretation was challenged, as it was argued that the proviso does not control the main provisions of the notification.4. Conflicting Judgments:The Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment, followed by other High Courts, favored the sugar factories. However, the Karnataka High Court found this interpretation erroneous. It emphasized that the plain language of Items 1 to 4 in the notification necessitates sugar production during the corresponding period in the base year to claim a rebate for excess production in the sugar year.5. Definition and Relevance of 'Base Year' and 'Sugar Year':The base year is defined as the period from 1-10-1972 to 30-9-1973, and the sugar year is the subsequent year. The notification divides the base year into four sub-periods, and rebate is permitted on excess sugar production during these sub-periods in the sugar year. The proviso indicates that rebate is not admissible if the factory did not work during the base period.6. Validity of 1976 Notices:In 1976, the Government of India re-examined the rebate issue and instructed the recovery of rebates already allowed, stating that rebates were not legally admissible where there was 'nil' production during the corresponding period in the base year. The sugar factories challenged these notices and were initially successful. However, the Karnataka High Court reversed this decision, emphasizing the need for production during the corresponding period in the base year to claim a rebate.7. Legal Effect of the Proviso:The proviso does not control the main provisions of the notification. It simply states that rebate is not admissible if the factory did not work during the base period. This means that if there was no sugar production during the corresponding period in the base year, the factory cannot claim a rebate for the sugar year. The Karnataka High Court disagreed with the Andhra Pradesh High Court's interpretation, stating that the proviso does not contradict the main provisions and should not be construed to allow rebates for 'nil' production during the base year.Conclusion:The Karnataka High Court allowed the appeals, reversed the orders of the learned Judges, and dismissed the writ petitions. It held that sugar factories are entitled to rebates only if they produced sugar during the corresponding period in the base year and in excess during the sugar year. The Court stayed the operation of its judgment for eight weeks and rejected the request for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that no substantial question of law of general importance arose for consideration.