Skip to content


Challapalli Sugars Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1988LC353(AP); 1988(35)ELT626(AP)
ActsCentral Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 8(1)
AppellantChallapalli Sugars Ltd.
RespondentUnion of India and ors.
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. - .....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.....
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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //