https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72568 Notification No. 108/78-C.E. was construed as not requiring a factory to have been in existence and producing sugar throughout every preceding year as an absolute condition for rebate; where the assessee otherwise satisfied the notification, commencement of production after the start of one or more preceding years did not defeat the benefit. The alleged disqualification under Notification No. 35/76 also failed because it was raised only in review and was not supported by particulars showing how the earlier notification applied or how clause 6 of Notification No. 108/78-C.E. was attracted. The rebate claims were therefore upheld and the departmental review notices failed. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 May 2011 15:13:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72568 Notification No. 108/78-C.E. was construed as not requiring a factory to have been in existence and producing sugar throughout every preceding year as an absolute condition for rebate; where the assessee otherwise satisfied the notification, commencement of production after the start of one or more preceding years did not defeat the benefit. The alleged disqualification under Notification No. 35/76 also failed because it was raised only in review and was not supported by particulars showing how the earlier notification applied or how clause 6 of Notification No. 108/78-C.E. was attracted. The rebate claims were therefore upheld and the departmental review notices failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72568