https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41234 A rebate notification for sugar production was construed as turning on the method of computing average production over the preceding five sugar years, including cases where some corresponding periods had nil production. Because Clause 3 expressly dealt with nil production by ignoring periods when the factory had not worked, eligibility could not be denied merely because the factory had not produced sugar in every one of the preceding five years. The delay-and-laches objection also failed, as the challenge was not shown to be grossly delayed or prejudicial. The rebate denial was unsustainable, the petition was allowed, and reassessment was directed under the notification. en-us Thu, 23 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 May 2010 15:12:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41234 A rebate notification for sugar production was construed as turning on the method of computing average production over the preceding five sugar years, including cases where some corresponding periods had nil production. Because Clause 3 expressly dealt with nil production by ignoring periods when the factory had not worked, eligibility could not be denied merely because the factory had not produced sugar in every one of the preceding five years. The delay-and-laches objection also failed, as the challenge was not shown to be grossly delayed or prejudicial. The rebate denial was unsustainable, the petition was allowed, and reassessment was directed under the notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41234