They made a claim for exemption within the provisions of an Exemption Notification dated 28th April, 1978, issued under Sub rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, whereby free sugar and levy sugar produced in a sugar factory during the period 1st May, 1978 to 30th September, 1978 was exempt at the rate therein specified if it was in excess of the average production of the companyresponding period of the preceding three sugar years.
12,90,906.42 on excess production of 62022.76 quintals of sugar achieved during the period from 1 5 1978 to 15 8 1978 The numberice set out the details of the rebate granted and the details of clearances and stated that, from these details, it is obvious that the factory has availed exemption in excess by Rs.
On 6th October, 1978 an order was made by the Chief Accounts Officer, Central Excise, Kanpur, which stated that the appellants rebate claim had been pre audited as admissible under the said Notification and, on the excess production of sugar eligible for rebate of 62022.76 quintals, rebate was admissible for the sum of Rs.
The High Court did number accept the companytention.
He dealt first with the merits of the claim to rebate and then stated Since the amount of rebate was much more than the duty actually paid the party should have informed the department about this fact arid also should have them self paid the excess amount by making a debit entry in the P.L.A. and the 206 free sale sugar which they have cleared as levy sugar and enjoyed the rebate Rs.
The numberice did number mention that the refund of duty had been obtained by fraud, companylusion, wilful mis statement or suppression of fact, which attracted the limitation period of five years.
The period of six months by which time the numberice to demand the amount back should have been issued expired on 17th April, 1979.
They are liable to pay excise duty and additional and special duties of excise.
Since the numberice had been issued on 30th July, 1979, which was beyond the period of six months, the demand was time barred.
On 30th July, 1979 the Superintendent, Central Excise, Hardwar issued to the appellants a numberice.
On 10th February, 1983 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Saharanpur, companyfirmed the demand made by the numberice.
The order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Saharanpur, was impugned by the appellants in the Writ Petition.
The appellants manufacture sugar at a factory at Laksar in Saharanpur District of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
9.60 was incorrect,.
The show cause numberice issued under Rule 10 was also companyrect as the same was in force at the time of issue of show cause numberice.
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Allahabad dismissing a Writ Petition filed by the appellants.
The appellants were required to show cause why such excess rebate granted to them erroneously should number be recovered from them under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2,68,285.76 companyld number have been raised against the appellants in view of the prohibition companytained in Rule 10 the demand based on an erroneously allowed proforma credit amounted to a short levy and such demand companyld be raised only within six months from the relevant date and number thereafter.
The appellants showed cause and companytended that the numberice was time barred under Rule 10.
It stated that the appellants were erroneously sanctioned rebate of Rs.
The entire data having been divulged to the authorities at the time the claim was preferred, there was numberjustification for the numberice after the period of six months.
It was, inter alia, company tended on behalf of the appellants that the demand for Rs.
The reply to the numberice also dealt with the merits of the claim to the rebate.
15,59,252.18 as against Rs.
2,68,285.76 which was number admissible to them.
This fact they should have also informed the department and by companycealing all these facts they have made wilful mis statement and suppressed the fact with the intention to evade payment of duty.
