https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41687 An exemption notification on sugar rebate was construed to permit rebate where the corresponding periods in the preceding five sugar years showed nil production, because the notification itself required such years to be ignored when computing the average. The rebate could not be denied merely because the base periods contained no production, and the assessees were held entitled to the benefit under the notification. A repayment demand based on alleged wrongful grant of rebate was treated as a short-levy claim, so the limitation applicable to short-levy proceedings under rule 10 applied rather than the residuary rule 10A; the Revenue's limitation objection therefore failed. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:12:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41687 An exemption notification on sugar rebate was construed to permit rebate where the corresponding periods in the preceding five sugar years showed nil production, because the notification itself required such years to be ignored when computing the average. The rebate could not be denied merely because the base periods contained no production, and the assessees were held entitled to the benefit under the notification. A repayment demand based on alleged wrongful grant of rebate was treated as a short-levy claim, so the limitation applicable to short-levy proceedings under rule 10 applied rather than the residuary rule 10A; the Revenue's limitation objection therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41687