Allahabad High Court
Laksmi Devi Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi), Cce And Ors. on 1 February, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992(38)ECR183(ALLAHABAD), 1992(58)ELT500(ALL)
Author: B.P. Jeevan Reddy
Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy
JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. This petition is filed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents from enforcing the notice of demand, dated 27th May 1981, issued by Superintendent, Central Excise, Gorakhpur and for other allied reliefs.
2. The main dispute in this writ petition pertains to the eligibility of the petitioner for Central Excise rebate for the sugar year 1972-73 and 1973-74. According to law, then in force, the petitioner was entitled to Central Excise rebate if he produced more sugar during the particular sugar year than he produced during the base year-which in this case, happens to be 1971-72 and 1972-73 respectively.
3. For a certain period during the base year the factory did not work and no sugar was produced. Now the authorities are saying that for the period the factory did not work during the base year, the production during the corresponding period in mis sugar-year will not be taken into account and on this basis the rebate has been denied to the petitioner. The view taken by the respondents is contrary to the decisions of this Court . The same view has been taken by the Punjab and Haryana and Andhra Pradesh High Courts. The view is that base year is a unit by itself and cannot be split up into sub-periods. All that one has to see is what was the production during the base year and what is the production during the year in question and if there is excess production, the petitioner can claim rebate.
4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to take action in accordance with the principles enunciated in the aforesaid two judgments of this Court and determine the rebate. If on such redetermination, after notice to the petitioner, any amount is found due from the petitioner, the same can be collected from him.
5. The demand notice, impugned herein, shall not be given effect to pending such redetermination.