Challapalli Sugars Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Challapalli Sugars Ltd. vs Union of India and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Aug 28, 1985

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/427414

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/427414
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: A. Raghuvir and ;Rama Rao, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 28, 1985
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Production Incentive - Sugar--Notification 146/74-CE dated 12 10.1974. The rebate is to be calculated in regard to the percentage of the excess production during the relevant year and not on the percentage of the average production of the previous 5 years. -

Key legal issue: Excise
Acts & sections: Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 8(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Challapalli Sugars Ltd.

Respondent

Union of India and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 8(1)
Reported In: 1988LC353(AP); 1988(35)ELT626(AP)

Excerpt

production incentive - sugar--notification 146/74-ce dated 12 10.1974. the rebate is to be calculated in regard to the percentage of the excess production during the relevant year and not on the percentage of the average production of the previous 5 years. - .....sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the central excise rules, 1944. the subject of the notification relates to free sale sugar and what is termed as levy sugar. the sugar in the two spheres of the market are accorded exemptions with reference to production of sugar in factories relevant to crushing season of december 1974 to september 1975. the words in serial no. 2 of the notification were the subject of interpretation by various courts. the clause in serial no. 2 was interpreted by karnataka high court in india sugars & refineries ltd. v. union of india- 1983 (12) elt 209, madras high court in sakthi sugars ltd. v. union of india - 1983 (12) elt 484, delhi high court in triveni engineering works ltd. v. union of india-1984 (18) elt 225, bombay high court in another journal in pravara shakari shakar karkhana ltd. v. union of india -1984 ecr 59 and by the tribunal of appeals in a decision reported in deccan sugar & abkhari co. ltd. v. collector of central excise, madras - 1984 (14) elt 2430, to mean differently from the interpretation adopted by a single judge of this court in the order under appeal. 2.in fairness to the single judge, he states and accepts two views are possible. once among the two views he is adopting. all the four high courts have adopted the other view. in our consideration we adopt the reasoning in india sugars & refineries ltd. v. union of india (supra) contained in paras 6 to 8 as, we are in agreement with the view taken in the five cases cited earlier. the supreme court, we are informed, refused special leave against the decision in india sugars & refineries ltd. v. union of india (supra). we are not understanding the refusal of the supreme court to mean affirmation of the view in the case. we therefore, allow the writ appeal and order no costs. 3. the learned counsel for the respondents sought oral leave to appeal to the supreme court. that court refused leave. we, therefore,do not think it necessary to order leave. oral leave refused.

Full Judgment

1. The common question in the two appeals is relevant to a notification issued by the Central Government on October 12, 1974 in exercise of the power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The subject of the notification relates to free sale sugar and what is termed as levy sugar. The sugar in the two spheres of the market are accorded exemptions with reference to production of sugar in factories relevant to crushing season of December 1974 to September 1975. The words in serial No. 2 of the notification were the subject of interpretation by various Courts. The clause in serial No. 2 was interpreted by Karnataka High Court in India Sugars & Refineries Ltd. v. Union of India- 1983 (12) ELT 209, Madras High Court in Sakthi sugars Ltd. v. Union of India - 1983 (12) ELT 484, Delhi High Court in Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. Union of India-1984 (18) ELT 225, Bombay High Court in another journal in Pravara Shakari Shakar Karkhana LTd. v. Union of India -1984 ECR 59 and by the Tribunal of Appeals in a decision reported in Deccan Sugar & Abkhari Co. LTD. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras - 1984 (14) ELT 2430, to mean differently from the interpretation adopted by a single judge of this court in the order under appeal.

2.In fairness to the single judge, he states and accepts two views are possible. Once among the two views he is adopting. All the four High Courts have adopted the other view. In our consideration we adopt the reasoning in India Sugars & Refineries LTd. v. Union of India (supra) contained in paras 6 to 8 as, we are in agreement with the view taken in the five cases cited earlier. The Supreme Court, we are informed, refused special leave against the decision in India Sugars & Refineries LTd. v. Union of India (supra). We are not understanding the refusal of the Supreme Court to mean affirmation of the view in the case. We therefore, allow the writ appeal and order no costs.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents sought oral leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. That court refused leave. We, therefore,do not think it necessary to order leave. Oral leave refused.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1985 Same Parties Challapalli Sugars Ltd. vs Union of India and ors. Same Subject Excise Same Judge A. Raghuvir and ;Rama Rao, JJ. Acts & Sections Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 8(1)

Excise