https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165954 Exemption notifications under delegated excise power were construed by their plain language and scheme, so rebate slabs under the 12-10-1974 sugar notification applied to excess production itself, not to excess expressed as a percentage of average production, entitling the assessees to the higher rebate claimed. Nil production in the corresponding base period did not by itself exclude rebate where the factory had worked in that period. The Government was also bound by promissory estoppel after issuing clarifications on which the industry relied. Recovery demands were held time-barred under rule 10 read with rule 173-J, with rule 10-A inapplicable, and writ jurisdiction remained available despite alternative remedies. en-us Fri, 28 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:34:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165954 Exemption notifications under delegated excise power were construed by their plain language and scheme, so rebate slabs under the 12-10-1974 sugar notification applied to excess production itself, not to excess expressed as a percentage of average production, entitling the assessees to the higher rebate claimed. Nil production in the corresponding base period did not by itself exclude rebate where the factory had worked in that period. The Government was also bound by promissory estoppel after issuing clarifications on which the industry relied. Recovery demands were held time-barred under rule 10 read with rule 173-J, with rule 10-A inapplicable, and writ jurisdiction remained available despite alternative remedies. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165954