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, for the purpose of Clause 3 of Notification No. 135/83-C.E. dated 30-4-1983, the average production of sugar had to be worked out on the basis of the entire three preceding sugar years even where production in one or more corresponding periods was nil, or only on the basis of the year in which actual production existed.
Analysis: Clause 3 of the notification required the average production to be determined with reference to the corresponding periods in the three specified sugar years, while ignoring the period in which sugar was not produced. The earlier Tribunal decision on the same notification had held that the emphasis was on the relevant period of actual working of the factory, and that where the factory had worked only for one year, the calculation of production for the purpose of the notification was confined to that year. The cited Bombay High Court decision was found to relate to different notifications and was not treated as governing the present computation issue.
Conclusion: The average was to be computed in the manner applied by the Revenue, and the rebate claim was not admissible on the assessee's method.
Ratio Decidendi: For Clause 3 of Notification No. 135/83-C.E., the computation of average production is governed by the period of actual factory operation contemplated by the notification, and not by a notional average of three years where production in the relevant periods was nil.