1982 (10) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed and paid excise duty on the sugar manufactured by it during the period May and June, 1973 at the rates specified in the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. 2. On 28-9-1972 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, issued a notification granting certain exemptions in payment of Excise duty on sugar produced by Sugar Factories as incentive Excise rebate on certain conditions. Acting upon the said notification, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 8,73,870/- at the rate of Rs. 30/- per quintal on the excess quantity of 29129 quintals of sugar produced by it between the period 1st of May, 1973 to 30th June, 1973. The claim made by the petitioner was scrutini....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ification dated 28-9-1972 and as such the amount of Rs. 8,73,870/- had been refunded to it correctly. The demand raised by the Excise Department is, therefore, illegal. (ii) The action taken by the Central Excise Authorities for recovering the refund of Rs. 8,73,870/- is also barred by limitation. (iii) The demand raised by the Excise Authorities stands vitiated inasmuch as the same was raised without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to have his say and in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The prayer made in the petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents who contend that the petitioner was not entitled to any exemption under Notification dated 28-9-1972. The refund of Rs. 8,73,870/- was, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot be admissible to a factory:     (a) which did not work during the base period or     (b) .............................................     (c) .............................................     Provided further that in computing the production of sugar during the "periods mentioned in column (2) of the said Table.     (a) ...............................................     (b) ................................................     (c) .................................................     Explanation I:     .......................................................................

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is shown that it did not produce any sugar during the base period. It does not say that exemption would be denied if no sugar was produced in the corresponding months of the base period. We are accordingly of opinion, that the submission made by the respondents on the basis of proviso to the notification is not well founded. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents then submitted that inasmuch as under main clause 3 of the notification, the petitioner could be entitled to exemption from payment of Excise duty to the extent indicated therein in respect of sugar produced by it during the months of May and June, 1973 only if it could be shown that it had produced some sugar in excess of the quantity of sugar produced by it during the correspo....