1997 (5) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....983. The Assistant Collector, who adjudicated the proceedings, has rejected the rebate claim on the ground that the respondents had produced sugar only during the corresponding period of one year out of the three preceding sugar years and as such they should have worked out the average on the basis of one year only and not on the basis of three sugar years as was done by them for calculating the excess quantity. The Assistant Collector, accordingly, reduced their rebate claim to Rs. 5,57,345.40 only. 2. It was the contention of the party before the Collector (Appeals) that clause 3 of the Notification No. 135/83 C.E. only states as to what quantity of sugar production can be taken into consideration while determining the average of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Excise, Aurangabad v. Vasant SSK Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 174 (Tribunal). Production of sugar during 1-5-1983 to 30-9-1983, being less than sugar produced during the year 1978-79, production not in excess as compared to past period, accordingly, rebate is not admissible. 4. Ms. Bhatnagar, countering the arguments, submitted that for arriving at the average production, entire three years period is to be taken even during the earlier period, there is no production. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Balasaheb Desai SSK Ltd. reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 866 (Bom.). She said that in view of that decision, average cannot be of one number or of the production....