JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.- The appellant, a public limited company engaged in manufacture and production of sugar preferred a claim for refund of Central Excise Duty on the basis of the concession given through SRO 455(0/1996, dated 13.6.1996. That SRO contemplated clearance of sugar at a rate of Rs. 1. 58 per kg. Which was in excess of average production of cane sugar in the preceding three financial years provided "that the factory operated for a period not less than 150 working days for crushing". The respondent-department refused the claim of refund with respect to the excess sugar alleged to have been produced during the period involved on the ground that their factory had not operated for 150 days.
2. The order in original refusing the claim of refund was unsuccessfully agitated before the Tribunal.
The learned Members of the Tribunal refused to accept the contention of the appellant that the factory operated for 167 days in the three preceding years i.e. 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. They also disagreed with the interpretation of the appellant of the words and phrase "crushing season" as contained in the Sugar Cane Act, 1934. The appellant had alleged that the closures taking place during crushing season were not to be excluded for working out number of crushing days in a financial year.
3. The operative part of the order of the Tribunal reads as under:- "We have heard contentions of both the sides and perused the appeal i.e available before us. The concessionary SRO 455(l)/96, dated 13.6.1996 allowed excess sugar produced in a financial year to be cleared @ Rs. 1.58 per k.g. Of the excess average production of cane sugar in a factory in the proceeding three financial years provided "that the factory operated for a period not less than 150 working days from crushing", in a sugar factory, the word "crushing" means crushing of sugarcane and there can be no other meaning of this word with reference to a sugar factory. The word "factory operated" is to be read with the word "for crushing". The wording used in the SRO clearly means that 150 working days had to be only those working days when the factory operated for crushing of sugar-cane. Hence, when the factory was not operating for crushing of sugar-cane, that time is to be excluded from the days of the crushing season. 0n that basis the appellants' working days during which their factory operated for crushing of cane were less than 150 working days in each of the preceding financial year and hence they were not entitled to the concession available on the so determined excess sugar by way of paying Rs.1.58 per kg. Therefore, the Adjudicating Officer was justified in rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits."
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we are of the view that the learned Members of the Tribunal had placed a correct interpretation on the aforesaid condition for availing the concession. They were also correct in emphasising the fact that in case of a sugar factory the word "crushing" could not have any other meaning except the crushing of sugarcane. Also that the operation of sugar factory was necessarily inter-linked to "crushing" as the words of SRO clearly implied. The purpose of the concession is evidently offering of an incentive to the sugar producers for maximum out put. Since admittedly the factory of the appellant had not operated "for crushing" for more than 150 days in the three proceeding years, its claim for refund on the basis of the concessional SRO was rightly refused.
4. Since no question of law has arisen out of the impugned order of the Tribunal, this appeal shall be dismissed in limine.