https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43492 The Supreme Court construed sugar rebate notifications under Rule 8(1) purposively to promote higher production and earlier crushing. Nil production in the corresponding period of the base year did not bar rebate on current-year excess production where the factory had otherwise worked during the base period, because the relevant words were read to include such cases and to avoid an irrational distinction between nil and low prior production. For Notification No. 146/74, clause (2) was held to require slab-wise rebate calculation with reference to the average production of the preceding five sugar years, that benchmark governing the graded rates. The interpretation favoured eligibility and the correct computation method under the scheme. en-us Tue, 30 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43492 The Supreme Court construed sugar rebate notifications under Rule 8(1) purposively to promote higher production and earlier crushing. Nil production in the corresponding period of the base year did not bar rebate on current-year excess production where the factory had otherwise worked during the base period, because the relevant words were read to include such cases and to avoid an irrational distinction between nil and low prior production. For Notification No. 146/74, clause (2) was held to require slab-wise rebate calculation with reference to the average production of the preceding five sugar years, that benchmark governing the graded rates. The interpretation favoured eligibility and the correct computation method under the scheme. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43492