Judgment:
1. The respondents were the manufacturers of sugar. Notification No.99/81-C.E., dated 3-4-1981 provided for concessional rates of duty for sugar cleared under additional entitlement under the incentive scheme announced by the Director of Sugar. The notification covered production from the Sugar year 1980-81 and thereafter. The respondents in terms of this notification and on the basis of a provisional sanction by the Director of Sugar effected clearance at concessional rates. On 22-4-1982 the show cause notice was issued claiming that since the certificate was on provisional basis, and that since the finalisation would take time the assessee would not fulfil the requirements in Explanation (iii) of the subject notification. Therefore, the differential duty was calculated and demand for Rs. 13,76,049.97 was made vide the show cause notice. The Assistant Collector confirmed this demand. He also confirmed the demands of similar nature arising out of two other show cause notices. These three orders were dealt with together by the Collector (Appeals) in his order dated 20-9-1984. The copy of this order of the Collector had not been placed on record by the appellant Collector. Shri B.V. Doshi, learned Consultant appearing for the respondent is also unable to place on record a copy of this order. It would appear that in this order the Collector (Appeals) had directed de novo consideration which was undertaken by the Assistant Collector in his order dated 31-8-1989. At this time the final certificate of the concerned authorities had been received. It is recorded in the order whereas the final certificate for the year 1981-82 entitled the assessee to clear 2,47,530 Qtls. That had cleared 2,67,342 Qtls during that year. The Assistant Collector thereafter dropped the proceedings for the other periods but confirmed differential duty leviable on the excess clearances made during the year 1981-82 amounting to Rs. 4,45,002.28. The assessee filed an appeal against this order. The Collector (Appeals) observed that as per final certificate, the quota fixed was 89% for the period 1980-81 to 1983-84 and the quota fixed for the year 1984-85 was 60%. Collector held that in terms of the notification for the purposes of computing the free-sale quota, the entire period should have been taken into account.
He held that the Assistant Collector was wrong in compartmentalising individual years of production for computing the beneficial fund. He, therefore, set aside the order, and directed the Assistant Collector to recalculate the duty liability for the entire period and not only for one year in which there was a apparatus (sic). The present appeal is against this order.
2. The single point raised in the appeal memorandum and argued by Shri Sangia was that in terms of the notification the clearances made in each year should be taken as per percentage prescribed of that years production. Shri Doshi, on the other hand, states that as per language of the notification the Collector's finding could not be faulted. We have carefully perused the notification which prescribed concessional rate for sugar "produced from the sugar year 1981 and thereafter...".
Neither the body of the notification nor the explanation given herein would support the department's case that the benefit of notification would have to be computed separately for each year. Since the notification is to be construed as per language used therein without going into the intendment we find no merit in the appeal. Upholding the order of the Collector we reject the appeal from the Revenue.