B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. The petitioner is a sugar mill. The controversy in this writ petition pertains to the amount of rebate in excise duty which the petitioner is entitled to in terms of the notification GSR No. 146/74-CE/F. No. 14/22/74/CX-1, dated 12.10.1974.
2. Evidently with a view to encourage the production of sugar, the Central Government had issued the said exemption notification under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The notification deals with the production in the sugar year 1974-75 only. At any rate Clauses (1) and (2) mentioned in the table contained in the said notification deal only with the sugar year 1974-75. (Sugar year, we are told, commences from 1st October and ends with 30th September of the following year). Clauses (1) and (2) provide for two distinct situations. Clause (1) deals with the period 1st October 1974 to 30lh November 1974, whereas Clause (2) deals with the period commencing on 1st December 1974 and ending with 30th September 1975. The petitioner says that his case falls under Clause (2). For the sake of convenience we may set out the notification insofar as it is relevant for the present purpose:
NOTIFICATION
CENTRAL EXCISE
G.S.R. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts sugar, described in column (2) of the Table below and falling under sub-item (i) of Item No. 1 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from so much the duty to excise leviable thereon as is specified in the corresponding entry in columns (3) & (4) of the said Table:
TABLE___________________________________________________________________________Duty of ExciseSl. Description of sugar Free sale sugar Levy sugarNo.___________________________________________________________________________1. 2. 3. 4.___________________________________________________________________________1. ..... .... ....2. Sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on the 1st day of December, 1974, and ending with the 30th day of September, 1975 which is in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding five years that is:(a) On excess production up to 7.5% Rs. 20 per quintal Rs. 5/- per quintal(b) On excess production on the next 10% Rs. 40/-per quintal Rs. 10/- per quintal(c) On excess production on the next 10% Rs. 50/-per quintal Rs. 14/- per quintal(d) On excess production on the next 10% Rs. 60/-per quintal Rs. 18/- per quintal(e) On excess production beyond 37.5% Rs. 82/- per quintal Rs. 22/- per quintalEXPLANATION: in this notification.
(a) 'Average production' in relation to sugar production in period by a factory which had gone into production for the first time in 1967-68 or earlier, means the simple average production during the corresponding period of the preceding five years;
3. A reading of the above clause discloses that for determining the rebate which a sugar mill is entitled to on account of excess production during the period 1.12.1974 to 30.9.1975, one has to see what was the average production during the corresponding period of the preceding five years. After finding out the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding five years, rebate has to be worked out on the excess production applying the relevant Clauses (a) to (b) as may be applicable.
4. The petitioner's case is that he first made a claim for rebate which was allowed as per his claim but later, he says, he came to know through the Sugar-Mill-Owners-Association that he is entitled to more rebate than what he claimed and obtained. Accordingly, he says, he made a fresh application claiming more rebate which has been rejected under the impugned order dated 13.4.1978. (His application for additional rebate is filed as annexure-4 and is dated 27th January, 1976.). The petitioner's grievance is that the Superintendent, Central Excise, has not correctly followed and applied the terms of Clause (2) of the said notification while rejecting this application.
5. Though, this writ petition was filed in 1980, no counter affidavit has been filed so far. The impugned order does not mention any facts and figures. All that it says is that while issuing the said notification the intention of the government was that the excess quantity of sugar would be divided into various slabs which would indicate excess production. In these circumstances, it is not possible for us to determine the amount of rebate which the petitioner is entitled. We have indicated hereinabove the true meaning and interpretation of Clause (2) of the notification. We direct the Superintendent, Central Excise, to dispose of the petitioner's application aforesaid under a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the interpretation placed by us on Clause (2) of the notification. Such decision shall be taken within three months of the production of a certified copy of this order.
6. For the above reasons, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.