Excise incentive computation turns on non-production during closure and period-linked duty payments for credit eligibility.

Under Notification No. 283/82-C.E., closure for computing base clearances was determined by non-production, not merely by non-clearance of goods, because the incentive scheme was directed at encouraging production during the scheme period. Intermittent clearances did not break the closure spell where the factory remained out of production. Duty paid under protest outside the relevant base and incentive periods could not be included in incentive credit without a clear linkage to clearances during those periods. On both issues, the Revenue's position was upheld and the lower appellate view was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for computing base clearances under Notification No. 283/82-C.E., the factory closure period during the base period had to be determined by non-production rather than by non-clearance of goods; (ii) Whether duty paid under protest on 31-3-1984 could be included for computing incentive credit for the relevant base and incentive periods.

Issue (i): Whether, for computing base clearances under Notification No. 283/82-C.E., the factory closure period during the base period had to be determined by non-production rather than by non-clearance of goods.

Analysis: Notification No. 283/82-C.E. was issued to implement the incentive scheme announced in the Budget speech, and the scheme was intended to encourage increased production during the specified year. The policy statement was treated as a reliable aid to construction. On that basis, the relevant yardstick for the closure spell was held to be absence of production, not mere absence of clearance. Consequently, intermittent clearances during the disputed period did not break the closure spell, because the factory remained out of production throughout the period in question.

Conclusion: The closure period was correctly taken as the full period of non-production, and the Revenue's contention succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether duty paid under protest on 31-3-1984 could be included for computing incentive credit for the relevant base and incentive periods.

Analysis: The amounts of basic excise duty and special excise duty were paid on 31-3-1984, which was outside both the base period and the incentive period. There was no evidence that those payments related to clearances of the specified goods during the relevant periods. In the absence of such linkage, the payments could not be taken into account for computing admissible incentive credit.

Conclusion: The duty amounts paid under protest were not eligible for inclusion in the incentive computation, and the Revenue's objection succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The order of the lower appellate authority was set aside to the extent challenged, and the adjudicating authority's view was restored, resulting in success for the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an excise incentive notification is framed to promote production during a specified scheme period, closure for computing base clearances is determined by non-production rather than by isolated clearances, and only duty payments linked to the relevant base or incentive period can be considered for the incentive credit.

---