https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40659 A sugar excise rebate notification was construed as an incentive scheme aimed at rewarding increased production, so nil production in the corresponding base period did not bar rebate on the later output; only factories that did not work during the defined base period were excluded. The argument of estoppel failed because an earlier administrative interpretation could not override a statutory notification, and there is no estoppel against statute. Writ jurisdiction was also held available despite statutory appeal and revision remedies, because the highest statutory authority had already adopted the challenged interpretation, making ordinary remedies futile. The demand and recovery action therefore could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 03 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 May 2010 11:04:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40659 A sugar excise rebate notification was construed as an incentive scheme aimed at rewarding increased production, so nil production in the corresponding base period did not bar rebate on the later output; only factories that did not work during the defined base period were excluded. The argument of estoppel failed because an earlier administrative interpretation could not override a statutory notification, and there is no estoppel against statute. Writ jurisdiction was also held available despite statutory appeal and revision remedies, because the highest statutory authority had already adopted the challenged interpretation, making ordinary remedies futile. The demand and recovery action therefore could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40659