Excise rebate credit cannot be denied for base-year non-production; recovery demands must satisfy the correct limitation rule.

Rebate or credit under Notification No. 203/72 was not to be denied merely because there was no production in the corresponding month of the base year; production in the relevant year remained eligible for the benefit, and the credit already taken could be retained. A demand for recredit had to be tested under Rule 10, not Rule 10A, and where the notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period, the recovery could not be sustained. The stated principle is that the correct limitation provision governs recovery of excise credit, and time-bar will defeat an untimely demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents were disentitled to the credit/rebate under Notification No. 203/72 because there was no production of sugar in the corresponding month of the base year; (ii) whether the demand for recredit was governed by Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules or by Rule 10 and was consequently barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents were disentitled to the credit/rebate under Notification No. 203/72 because there was no production of sugar in the corresponding month of the base year.

Analysis: The notification was applied in the light of earlier decisions of High Courts and the Tribunal, all of which had held that absence of production in the corresponding base-year period did not by itself deprive a factory of the benefit of rebate on production in the relevant year. The same principle was followed here, and the respondents' production in March 1973 was treated as eligible for the credit already taken.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to retain the credit and were not required to recredit the amount.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for recredit was governed by Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules or by Rule 10 and was consequently barred by limitation.

Analysis: The demand was held to fall under Rule 10, not Rule 10A, on the basis of the authorities relied upon. As the notice was issued long after the expiry of the limitation period then prescribed under Rule 10, the demand could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The order in favour of the respondents was affirmed and the departmental appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A rebate or credit granted under the relevant excise notification cannot be denied merely because there was no production in the corresponding base-year month, and a demand for recovery of such credit must be tested under the correct limitation provision applicable to the demand.

---