COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. ETC. versus NEOLI SUGAR FACTORY ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 758 · Decided: 30-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. ETC. 
v. 
NEOLI SUGAR FACTORY ETC. ETC. 
MARCH 30, 1993 
B 
'f 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
' 
Central Excise Rules, 1944: Rule 8( 1 }-Notifications dated 28.9.1972, 
4.10.1973, 12.10.1974 and 30.9.1976-Constmction-Rebate provided in 
-
clause (1) of Table of the Notifications--Whether sugar factories entitled to 
c though they did not produce any sugar in the base year but produced certain 
quantity of sugar during current sugar y<ai--Method to work out clause (2) 
of Notification dated 12.10.74. 
'y-
In a Notification dated 28.9.1972, with a view to induce the sugar 
D 
factories (respondents) to produce more and· also to commence their 
operations early in the sugar year (the year commencing on and with 1st 
October and ending with the 30th of September of the following year) a 
rebate was provided. 
The scheme of the Notification was : 
E 
(1) If during the months of October and November 1972 (in the 
~ 
Sugar Year 1972-73), a factory produced sugar in excess of the quantity of 
sugar produced by it during the months of October-November 1971, such· 
factory was granted rebate in the Excise Duty at the rate of rupees forty 
-
per quintaI in so far as the excess production is concerned. 
F 
(2) Rebate for the period 1st December 1972 to 30th April, 1973 was 
._ 
available at the rate of rupees twenty per quintal provided the production 
of sugar during the said period was in excess of 115% of the quantity of 
sugar produced by the said factory during the corresponding period in the 
G previous Sugar Year, in so far as the excess production is concerned. 
(3) For the months of May and June 1973 rebate at the rate of rupees 
twenty per quintal was available provided the factory produced more sugar 
·-< 
' 
than it produced during the corresponding months in the previous Sugar 
Year. The said rebate was available again only with respect to the excess 
H production. 
758 
I 
~ 
COLLECTORv. SUGAR FACTORY 
759 
(4) For the period commencing from 1st July, 1973 and ending with A 
30th of September, 1973, rebate was available at the rate of rupees twently 
per quintal provided the factory produced sugar in excess of the quantity 
produced during the corresponding period in the previous Sugar Year. 
This rebate too was confined to the excess production. 
However, tne benefit of the rebate mentioned in any of the clauses B 
aforesaid was not available to a factory which inter a/ia did not work during 
the 'base pariod'." 
,.;. 
The other three Notifications dated 4.10.73, 12.10.74 and 30.9.76 were 
similar. All the four Notifications were applicable to the Sugar years - c 
1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1976-77, respectively. 
The respondents - sugar factories did not produce any sugar in one 
or the other of the four blocks (mentioned in th.e Table contained in the 
Notification) in the base year (previous sugar year), During the current 
sugar year, they produced certain quantity of sugar during that block D 
period. 
The respondents contended that they were entitled to the benefit of 
rebate provided in clause (1) of the Table contained in the Notification, 
-~ 
whereas the Revenue submitted that they were not entitled to the benefit 
of rebate. 
E 
The claim for rebate made by the respondnets was allowed in the 
first instance, but later proceedings were initiated to recover back, or 
re-adjust, the benefit already allowed. 
These disputes were carried to the High Courts. 
F 
~~ 
Almost all the High Courts except Karnataka held in favour of the 
respondents. In Patna High Court, there was a conflict of opinion. 
Hence this batch of appeals by the Revenue contending that the G 
benefit of rebate was available only where the "sugar produced in a factory 
y 
during the period commencing from the 1st day of October, 1972 and 
' 
ending with the 30th day of November, 1972 which is in excess of the 
quantity of sugar produced during the corresponding "period in 1971"; that 
nil production could not be equated to "the quantity of sugar produced" in 
clause (I); that clause (I) of the first proviso in the 1972 Notification has H 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 2 S.C.R. 
:j,..._ 
A to be harmonised with the several clauses in the table; and that no 
interpretation should be adopted which rendered any part or the Notifica-
tion superfluous. 
Dismissing all the civil appeals, except Civil Appeal Nos. 3831-32 or 
1988, this Court, 
T 
B 
HELD : 1.01. The several clauses in the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.