1988 (6) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5/83, dated 30-4-1983. 3. Briefly stated the controversy centres around the fact whether in arriving at average production of sugar during the corresponding period (May to Sept.) of the preceding three sugar years. The period during which no production of sugar has taken place in any of the preceding three years is to be ignored or not. In other words, for example with reference to Notification No. 132/82 if there has been no production of sugar during the period May-Sept., 1979 and there has been a production during May-Sept., 1980 & 1981 the average production has to be calculated by adding the production of the later two years and dividing it by 2 or dividing it by 3 or to take another extreme example in the aforesaid case itself i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich one of the notifications under consideration here namely 132/82, dated 21-4-1982 came up for decision of the Tribunal. There is no dispute that the Notifications 132/82 and 135/83 are more or less identically worded and their interpretation would be alike on this question. 6. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the three notifications. Relevant portions of the Notification 146/74 are as follows :- "Notfn. 146/74, dated 12-10-1974 :- Explanation - In this notification - ................................... 4.  Where production in one or more sugar years among five sugar years was nil, the production in such sugar year or sugar years shall be ignored and the average pr....