TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (8) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this petition the petitioners challenged the legality of the demand notice issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 7,21,827/-. The demand has been raised on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly allowed excise rebate in the like amount under the relevant notification dated 28th September, 1972. 2. In the exercise of power confe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tity of sugar produced during the period commencing from the 1st day of December, 1971 and ending with the 30th day of April, 1972 exemption was fixed at Rs. 20/- per quintal. 3. There was, however, a proviso added to the table which stated that exemption under the said notification shall not be admissible to a factory which did not work during the base year. The base year was defined in the noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the months of October and November, 1971. The point is whether a sugar factory which has not produced sugar during the whole of the base period, as defined in the said notification, but only during a part of it would become disentitled to claim excise rebate in terms of the aforesaid notification. The question came up for consideration before this court in the case of M/s. L.H. Sugar Factories....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the said notification. The said decision is directly in point and completely covers the controversy. 5. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have conceded that except for Rs. 3,13,827/- the rebate was rightly allowed to the petitioner. It may be added that the petitioner was initially allowed the rebate of Rs. 7,33,827/-. Subsequently by the impugned demand the department took the stand....