Shri Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Vs. C.C.E. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the short issue for determination in this appeal is whether brown sugar produced during a particular year and refined during subsequent year is eligible for excess sugar production rebate during the year it was produced.2. the facts of the case are that the appellants submitted a claim for rebate of duty amounting to rs. 33,181 /- on 1706.63 quintals of sugar obtained by reprocessing of 1921 quintals of brown sugar produced during the year 1982-83 season. the appellants contended that according to para 2(iv) of notfn. no. 135/83, dated 30-4-1983 "any sugar obtained by reprocessing of defective or damaged sugar or brown sugar, if the same has already been included in the quantity of sugar produced shall not be taken into account in computing the production of sugar during the period.....

Judgment:
1. The short issue for determination in this appeal is whether brown sugar produced during a particular year and refined during subsequent year is eligible for excess sugar production rebate during the year it was produced.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellants submitted a claim for rebate of duty amounting to Rs. 33,181 /- on 1706.63 quintals of sugar obtained by reprocessing of 1921 quintals of brown sugar produced during the year 1982-83 season. The appellants contended that according to para 2(iv) of Notfn. No. 135/83, dated 30-4-1983 "Any sugar obtained by reprocessing of defective or damaged sugar or brown sugar, if the same has already been included in the quantity of sugar produced shall not be taken into account in computing the production of sugar during the period mentioned in column (1) of the said table in respect of a factory mentioned therein" and in accordance with this sub-para, it is clear that it was permissible to include brown sugar as prodtic-tion of season in which it is produced. The appellants also have cited and relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Meerut v. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 55 (Tribunal) whereunder the Tribunal ruled that for computing the production of sugar, quantity of sugar recorded in RG-1 shall be taken into account as sugar produced during a particular season. The lower authorities have, however, held that since sugar was processed during the year 1983-84, therefore, it cannot be treated as the production eligible for excess sugar production rebate during the season 1982-83 and rejected their claim.

3. Shri P. Das, the learned SDR appearing for the respondents sub-mitted that brown sugar was not completely finished sugar and was not marketable and therefore, it could not be treated as a production of the sugar season 1982-83. Reiterating the findings of the lower authorities, he submitted that sugar rebate claim of excess production of sugar has rightly been rejected.

4. Heard the submissions [of both] sides. The admitted position is that 1921 quintals of brown sugar was produced during the sugar season 1982-83. This brown sugar was reprocessed during sugar season 1983-84 and 1706.63 quintals of sugar was obtained by reprocessing of 1921 quintals of brown sugar. We find that sugar rebate during the material period was covered by Notfn. No. 135/83, dated 30-4-1983. In this Notification, it has specifically been provided that for purpose of calculating the rebate the quantity of sugar shown in RG-1 register shall be taken into account. The admitted position is that brown sugar was shown in RG-1 register in the season 1982-83. In terms of specific requirement of Notfn. No. 135/83 about the manner of computation of sugar produced, we find that there is no other method of computing left as the Notification is specific about computation and therefore, it has to be followed for computing the production and ascertaining the excess if any. In the instant case, the lower authorities have not followed properly the method of computation of sugar produced during the season 1982-83. In the light of this discussion, we hold that the appellants' contention is correct and the lower authorities have erred in computing the correct quantity of sugar eligible for excess sugar rebate.

5. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.