1985 (3) TMI 265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ufacture and it was cleared between 1-1-1978 and 27-1-1978. The Assistant Collector, therefore, rejected M/s. Madhusudan Vegetable Products Co.'s claim for Rs. 11,301.62 by his Order No. V. 13/30-109/MP/78/17021, dated 27-7-1979. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay agreed with the Assistant Collector and rejected the factory's appeal by his Order No. 800/AMD-6/81, dated 28-7-1981, though he said the subject of the Vegetable Products Control Order discussed by the Asst. Collector would not affect the ultimate findings. 2. Mr. N.I. Mehta argued before us that the two lower courts were wrong. The vegetable product on which they claimed the rebate was fully entitled to the concession. There was nothing in Notification No. 209/7....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n July, as the case may be. The Asst. Collector said the total clearance of vegetable product from the factory was to be taken while allowing the rebate. This condition was not fulfilled "as the Notification No. 209/76 has been operating during the subsequent period', (he possibly means "not been operating"), and so the factory would not have exceeded 30% limit specified. This is strange argument. If the factory had less than 30% indigenous cotton oil and if the notification gives no concession for it,' why, then, reject the claim. But it is no good saying "quite possible the percentage of indigenous cotton seed oil would not have exceeded the limit of 30%" we cannot go by "possible" ; we want facts and facts are rather scarce in the Asst. ....