Exemption for post-1974 sugar factories: later eligibility certification can sustain refund, despite earlier benefit under another notification.

Notification No. 35/76-C.E. exempted sugar produced by a factory commencing production on or after 1 April 1974, subject to certification by the competent authority. A refund claim supported initially by a provisional eligibility certificate was not liable to rejection where a final certificate was later produced and eligibility was ultimately verified. The proviso to the notification also indicated that Notification No. 210/73-C.E. would not govern a factory covered by the later exemption. Accordingly, prior availment of the earlier notification could not by itself defeat entitlement under Notification No. 35/76-C.E. when the factory otherwise satisfied the prescribed conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Notification No. 35/76-C.E. could be denied because the refund claim was initially supported only by a provisional eligibility certificate, and whether a sugar factory covered by that notification could be denied its benefit on the ground that it had earlier availed the benefit of Notification No. 210/73-C.E.

Analysis: Notification No. 35/76-C.E. granted exemption to sugar produced by a factory commencing production on or after 1 April 1974, subject to production of a certificate from the competent authority regarding eligibility. The factory had commenced production after the relevant date, and the refund application was filed with a provisional certificate which was later replaced by a final certificate. The absence of the final certificate at the initial stage was not treated as a valid ground to reject the claim when the eligibility was subsequently certified. The proviso to Notification No. 35/76-C.E. also showed that Notification No. 210/73-C.E. would not apply to a factory covered by the later notification. Since the assessee was otherwise eligible under Notification No. 35/76-C.E., the benefit could not be denied merely because duty had earlier been paid under the other notification.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to reconsideration of the refund claim under Notification No. 35/76-C.E., and the earlier benefit under Notification No. 210/73-C.E. could not by itself defeat that claim.

---