TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (8) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant Collector) in order No. V/1/30/32/74 B. 1 (Exhibit-E). 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of sugar and is, therefore, exigible to excise duties under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The factory of the petitioner that manufactures sugar was in existence and was working during the `base period' defined in the Explanation to Notification No. 189/73, dated 4-10-1973 (Exhibit-A) issued by the Central Government under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under the Act which allowed certain exemptions on sugar produced in the sugar factories on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. By Notification No. 78/74, dated 20-4-19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-10-1973 clearly indicates that the exemption mentioned in the notification shall not be admissible to a factory which did not work during the base period. It is therefore clear that this factory is not entitled to any rebate if it has not produced any sugar during the base period. The expressions `excess' and 'quantity produced' used in the notification are significant. Excess in the context can only mean the quantity by which one exceeds another implying thereby that there must be two sets of production figures for comparison to determine the excess produced. In the instant case, M/s. Kampli Co-operative Sugar Factory has production in the month of May, 1974 and nil production in the month of June, 1974. There was no production in the cor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Union of India and Another (Writ Petitions Nos. 3672 of 1976 and connected cases decided on 3-2-1978)-1979 E.L.T. (J 533). 7. Sri K. Shivashankar Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents in justifying the impugned orders on the very reasons given by them and other reasons urged that this is a fit case in which this Court should decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction on the ground the petitioner had not availed and exhausted the remedy of a revision under Section 36 of the Act. 8. A revision is not a right given to a party. A revision is only a power conferred on an authority which it may or may not exercise at all. Any failure to avail the remedy of a revision does not touch on the jurisdiction of this Court to exerci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e previous period. 12. The word `production' cannot be literally interpreted. Every word occurring in a notification must be interpreted in the context in which it occurs keeping in view the scheme and object of that notification. I have therefore no hesitation in rejecting this contention of Sri Bhat. 13. In examining the very notification and rejecting similar objections of the authorities, Chinnappa Reddy, J. (as he then was) has expressed thus in Etikoppaka Co-operative Agricultural Society's case : "The argument of the counsel for the Central Government was that in order to entitle the manufacturer to the rebate of excise duty he must have produced `some' sugar during the relevant periods in the base year. Accordingly to him, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mptions would not be admissible. The proviso did not make exemptions inadmissible if the factory did not work during the relevant periods mentioned against Sl. Nos. 1 to 4. If the object of the notification was not to grant any exemption in respect of the sugar produced during any one of the four periods mentioned against Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 if no sugar was produced during the corresponding periods in the base year, the proviso to the notification would have been worded differently. In the face of the proviso, I find it difficult to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the Central Government." In my opinion these views expressed by His Lordship are sound and correct and I am in complete agreement with the same. 14. On the correc....