Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.01 seconds)
South India Sugars Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 14 May, 1987 cites

Assistant Collector, Central Excise vs Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. on 26 December, 1969

16. The contention of the appellants before the Assistant Collector was that they were entitled to claim incentive rebate on the quantity in stock (inclusive of the brown/damaged Sugar also) at the time of their claiming the rebate and that any subsequent loss during reprocessing should not be taken into account for reducing the rebate already allowed. In rejecting this contention the Assistant Collector held "the quantity of sugar not eventually cleared from the factory due to storage loss or other reasons will not cover any rebate and that the amount of proforma credit should be reduced suitably by deposits to the extent the excess production of sugar not cleared from the factory." Thus the reason that evidently prevailed with the Assistant Collector was that the rebate should be calculated with reference to the sugar finally cleared from the factory and not merely with reference to the sugar initially produced, inclusive of the brown/damaged sugar. The Appellate Collector in his order pointed out that though called an incentive rebate it was really an exemption from duty and the contention of the appellants cannot be accepted since the levy on the sugar produced during the season has not been discharged until clearances during the next season and the reprocessing showed a very high shortage. He further relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Nizam Sugar Factory and Anr. decision in the case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1972 TLR 2309). Shri Sachar for the Department relies upon the same reasoning (as mentioned by the Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector) in defending this appeal.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Shree Una Taluka Khedut Sahakari Khand ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 22 August, 1983

8. We find that this issue has come in for consideration before this Bench in the case of Shree Una Taluka Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay : 1984 (15) ELT 183. In this case it was held that the rebate claimed with reference to-a notification conferring duty concession allowed by adjustment in PLA virtually amounts to refund of duty paid and would be covered under Rule 10 of the Central Excises Rules 1944. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we fully concur with this view.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Rohtas Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 October, 1970

16. The contention of the appellants before the Assistant Collector was that they were entitled to claim incentive rebate on the quantity in stock (inclusive of the brown/damaged Sugar also) at the time of their claiming the rebate and that any subsequent loss during reprocessing should not be taken into account for reducing the rebate already allowed. In rejecting this contention the Assistant Collector held "the quantity of sugar not eventually cleared from the factory due to storage loss or other reasons will not cover any rebate and that the amount of proforma credit should be reduced suitably by deposits to the extent the excess production of sugar not cleared from the factory." Thus the reason that evidently prevailed with the Assistant Collector was that the rebate should be calculated with reference to the sugar finally cleared from the factory and not merely with reference to the sugar initially produced, inclusive of the brown/damaged sugar. The Appellate Collector in his order pointed out that though called an incentive rebate it was really an exemption from duty and the contention of the appellants cannot be accepted since the levy on the sugar produced during the season has not been discharged until clearances during the next season and the reprocessing showed a very high shortage. He further relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Nizam Sugar Factory and Anr. decision in the case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1972 TLR 2309). Shri Sachar for the Department relies upon the same reasoning (as mentioned by the Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector) in defending this appeal.
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1