https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41793 Exemption notifications under rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 intended to encourage higher sugar production were held applicable even where the corresponding period in the earlier year showed nil production, because later production over a nil base still constituted excess production. The exclusion for factories that did not work during the defined base period was confined to total non-working during that base period and did not apply merely because the corresponding period had no output. The writ petitions were also held maintainable despite an alternate statutory remedy, as the departmental interpretation challenged was already fixed and the ordinary remedy would have been futile. The demands were unsustainable and amounts recovered were directed to be refunded. en-us Tue, 18 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:06:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41793 Exemption notifications under rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 intended to encourage higher sugar production were held applicable even where the corresponding period in the earlier year showed nil production, because later production over a nil base still constituted excess production. The exclusion for factories that did not work during the defined base period was confined to total non-working during that base period and did not apply merely because the corresponding period had no output. The writ petitions were also held maintainable despite an alternate statutory remedy, as the departmental interpretation challenged was already fixed and the ordinary remedy would have been futile. The demands were unsustainable and amounts recovered were directed to be refunded. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41793