1995 (6) TMI 93 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants for incentive rebate dispute under Notification 150/83

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding they were entitled to the incentive rebate under Notification 150/83 for the 1983-84 period. The ... Higher production rebate Issues:1. Entitlement for incentive rebate under Notification 150/83 during the 1983-84 period.2. Interpretation of the term 'closed' in Notification 150/83 regarding factory operations during a strike period.Analysis:1. The case revolved around the entitlement of the appellants for an incentive rebate under Notification 150/83 during the 1983-84 period. The appellants manufactured refractory bricks and claimed exemption under Notification 77/83, which had conditions regarding the aggregate value of clearance not exceeding Rs. 40 lakhs in the previous financial year. The Department argued that the total clearance exceeded Rs. 40 lakhs, making the factory ineligible for benefits in 1984-85. The Assistant Collector calculated the base period clearance value and found the appellants ineligible for the incentive rebate. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.2. The main point of contention was the interpretation of the term 'closed' in Notification 150/83 during a strike period. The appellants argued that the factory was not closed during the strike as other activities continued. They referred to previous cases where the Tribunal had clarified that the notification focused on clearances, not production. On the other hand, the Department contended that the strike period amounted to closure as there was neither production nor clearance. They relied on the Supreme Court decision emphasizing common trade understanding when terms are undefined. The Tribunal analyzed the explanations in Notification 150/83 and concluded that the factory was not closed during the strike period as day-to-day activities were not halted. The absence of a clear definition for 'closed' led to the factory not being considered closed during the strike, resulting in the appeal being allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that they were entitled to the incentive rebate under Notification 150/83 for the 1983-84 period. The dispute over the term 'closed' in the context of a strike period was resolved in favor of the appellants based on the lack of evidence showing actual closure of the factory during the strike. The decision highlighted the importance of clear definitions in legal notifications and the need to interpret terms in their natural grammatical meaning when undefined.