<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1981 (12) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41284</link>
    <description>Rebate under Notification No. 146/74-C.E. depended on production during the corresponding period of the preceding five sugar years under rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The definition of &quot;sugar year&quot; covered 1 October to 30 September, and paragraph 4 regulated only the class of factories and the treatment of the preceding five sugar years; it did not permit exclusion of nil-production years when averaging the relevant October-November production. On the admitted figures, the petitioner&#039;s October-November 1974 production exceeded that average and its annual production also met paragraph 1(b), so rebate was available and the contrary orders could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:59:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (12) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41284</link>
      <description>Rebate under Notification No. 146/74-C.E. depended on production during the corresponding period of the preceding five sugar years under rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The definition of &quot;sugar year&quot; covered 1 October to 30 September, and paragraph 4 regulated only the class of factories and the treatment of the preceding five sugar years; it did not permit exclusion of nil-production years when averaging the relevant October-November production. On the admitted figures, the petitioner&#039;s October-November 1974 production exceeded that average and its annual production also met paragraph 1(b), so rebate was available and the contrary orders could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>