https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43221 An exemption notification for sugar under Rule 8(1) applied to sugar produced in specified periods of the sugar year, and its proviso excluded only factories that did not work in the base period, had only a trial run, or commenced production for the first time on or after 1 October 1972. The court held that nil production in the corresponding comparison period did not by itself disqualify a factory where the notification required production in the base period and did not expressly exclude such cases. Following binding precedent on identical facts, the petitioner was held entitled to the exemption, and the recovery notice issued under Rule 10A was invalid and quashed. en-us Thu, 02 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:04:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43221 An exemption notification for sugar under Rule 8(1) applied to sugar produced in specified periods of the sugar year, and its proviso excluded only factories that did not work in the base period, had only a trial run, or commenced production for the first time on or after 1 October 1972. The court held that nil production in the corresponding comparison period did not by itself disqualify a factory where the notification required production in the base period and did not expressly exclude such cases. Following binding precedent on identical facts, the petitioner was held entitled to the exemption, and the recovery notice issued under Rule 10A was invalid and quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43221