COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. NEOLI SUGAR FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH a view to induce the Sugar Factories in the country to produce more and also to commence their operations early in the year, the Government of India have been issuing notifications, from time to time, providing for rebate in the, Excise Duty in certain circumstances. These notifications were issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Rule (1) of R. 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We are concerned in these appeals with four such notifications namely (1) the Notification dated 28-9-72 (applicable to the Sugar Year 1972-73), (2) Notification dated 4-10-73 (applicable to the Sugar Year, 1973-74), (3) Notification dated 12-10-74 (applicable to the Sugar Year 1974-75) and (4) the Notification dated 30-9-76 (applicable to the Sugar Year 1976-77). 'Sugar Year' means the year commencing on and with 1st October and ending with the 30th of September of the following year. The interpretation of these notifications is involved in this batch of appeals.

(2.) IN so far as it is material, the notification dated 28-9-72 and the notification dated 4-10-73 are similar. So are the notifications dated 12-10-74 and 30-9-76. It would be appropriate if we set out the notification dated 28-9-72 in its entirety :

(3.) THE sugar factories (concerned with the sugar year 1972-73) did not produce any sugar in one or the other of the four blocks (mentioned in the table contained in the Notification) in the base year (previous sugar year). During the current year, however, they produced certain quantity of sugar during that block-period. To be more precise, take factory A. It produced 1000 quintals of sugar in the months of October-November, 1972 (Block-period (1)) but had not produced any sugar whatever in the corresponding period (October-November, 1971) in the base year. The question arose whether in such a situation, Factory A was entitled to the benefit of rebate provided in Clause (1) of the Table contained in the aforesaid notification with respect to the said 1,000 quintals? The contention of the factory was that it was so entitled, whereas according to the Revenue, it was not.