JUDGMENT
Majumdar, J.
1. In this petition, Mr. B. B. Naik appears for the respondents and waives service of Rule. With the consent of the learned Advocates of the parties. Rule is heard today.
2. The short question involved in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is regarding granting of relief of issuing a writ of certiorary for quashing and setting aside the order of revisional authority at Annexure E dated 20-7-1981 in so far as it has failed to extend the time in respect of claim covered by the show cause notice covering the period spread over September covered by the show cause notice covering the period spread over September 1976. It is the revisional order on the basis of which the Assistant Collector passed a consequential order at Annexure F by which he has reiterated the demand of duty to the turn of Rs. 5,93,321.75. If the revision order which is the basis of the later order of the Assistant Collector falls through in this connection, the consequential order at Annexure F demanding duty of Rs. 5,93,321.75 from the petitioner will obviously not survive.
3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner centering round these orders at Annexures E and F, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. The petitioner is a multi-unit co-operative society engaged in the manufacture of fertilisers in the factories located at Kalol (N.G.) and Kandla in this State. They started manufacturing urea in their plant at Kalol in March 1975. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture and distribution of fertilisers which are taxable goods within the meaning of that expression in Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (‘the Act’ for short). The fertilisers manufactured by the petitioner are urea which is a base fertiliser and N. P. K. in different grade which in common parlance are known as complex fertilisers manufactured out of base fertilisers. Urea is manufactured in their factory at Kalol while N. P. K. fertilisers are manufactured in their other factory at Kandla. Having regard to the disparity in cost of imported and indigenous fertilisers, the Government of India introduced in 1974, a scheme designed to ensure a uniform price at the point of sale to the farmers of fertilisers throughout the country. In pursuance of the said scheme, the fertilisers pool equalisation fund was created and the manufacturers were required to credit into this fund certain amounts notified from time to time as fertiliser pool equalisation charge on clearance effected by them. The entire scheme, including the aforesaid fund was administered by the Ministry of Agriculture.
4. Simultaneously with the introduction of the scheme mentioned above, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, Notification No. 108/74-C.E., dated 20-6-1974 exempting fertilisers from duty equivalent to the duty payable on the fertilisers pool equalisation charge. The said notification provided for crediting into the pool fund of fertilisers pool equalisation fund amounts notified in accordance with the directions issued by the Central Government and submission of proof of payment within 60 days of the date of clearance of the said fertilisers. The petitioner’s case is that for the relevant months of June and July 1976, they had made necessary contribution to the pool and had furnished requisite undertaking as required by the exemption notification but by some mischance and for the reasons beyond its control, proof of such payment could not be submitted to the competent authority under the Act within 60 days from the date of clearance of fertilisers during these months. Still however, benefit of the exemption notification endured for covering the said clearances. This case of the petitioner was not accepted by the competent authority and a show cause notice dated 22-12-1976 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise calling upon the petitioner to show cause to the Assistant Collector – respondent No. 3, as to why duty amounting to Rs. 19,72,147.32 should not be recovered from the petitioner, as the petitioner had failed to comply with the requisite conditions of the exemption notification, so far as fertilisers cleared by the petitioner for the months of June, July and September 1976 were concerned. After the petitioner showed cause to the said notice, the Assistant Collector by his order dated 10-6-1977 at Annexure C, confirmed the demand of Rs. 19,72,147.32. A copy of the said order is at Annexure C to this petition. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal but the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner carried the matter in revision to the Central Government. In the revision, the Govt. of India took the view that because of newly inserted para by Notification No. 191/76-C.E., dated 12-6-1976 it was empowered to extend the period of 60 days to produce the proof for payment of amount in the fertilisers pool equalisation fund as originally provided in exemption Notification No. 108/74, and as a special case, the Government was inclined to extend the time in respect of clearances effected by the petitioner for the period from 1-6-1976 to 31-7-1976 and from 1-10-1976 to 30-11-1976. It becomes obvious that the Central Government in exercise of its power for granting such extension pursuant to Notification dated 12-6-1976 was inclined cover all clearances of fertilisers made by the petitioner for the period from 1-6-1976 onwards upto 30-11-1976. However, when we turn to the order at Annexure E, it appears that by some mischance or clerical error, the clearances as effected in September 1976 are not specifically mentioned though the entire period from 1-6-1976 to 30-11-1976 is mentioned. It become obvious that what was intended by the Central government was to extend the period for furnishing particulars of payment in fertilisers pool equalisation fund by the petitioner for all the clearances from 1-6-1976 to 30-11-1976 and only by some mischance, clearances of fertilisers for the month of September 1976 could not be mentioned in the order, though implicit in the order is the coverage of clearances of fertilisers for September 1976 also. Because of the aforesaid inadvertent and accidental error in the order, the Assistant Collector by the impugned order at Annexure F took the view on literal reading of the revisional order at Annexure E, that the petitioner was granted extension only for June and July 1976 and not for September 1976 and, therefore, the original demand of duty would stand reduced by Rs. 13,77,825.77 and still the petitioner was required to pay duty of Rs. 5,93,321.75 being the balance of duty payable on clearances of fertilisers for the month of September 1976 as to that extent, the exemption notification would not be applicable for covering these clearances. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the order at Annexure F passed by the Assistant Collector proceeds on a plain misreading of the order of the revisional authority. The revisional order itself also suffers from a patent error of law as by a mischance or accidental error, month of September 1976 is not expressly mentioned though in fact, the Government was extending time in respect of goods relating to the period from 1-6-1976 onwards upto 30-11-1976 and within that span of time, September 1976 clearance would necessarily be included.
5. In our view, the aforesaid contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioner is well justified. The learned Advocate for the respondents was not in a position to effectively combat this contention. On a plain reading of para 4 of the revisional order, no doubt is left in our mind that the Central Government had decided to extend the time in exercise of its powers under Notification No. 108/74 read with Notification No. 191/76 to cover proof of payment to the fertilisers pool equalisation fund in connection with clearances of fertilisers effected by the petitioner from 1-6-1976 to 30-11-1976. When extension was granted by the Government for this entire period, implicit in this decision of the Central Government is the conclusion that clearances for the month of September 1976 are also included. Not mentioning of specific month of September 1976 in the last part of the order appears to be a clear accidental error or omission, which was not an intentional one. Such clerical error or accidental slip cannot be permitted to cut across the substance of the relief granted by the Central Government to the petitioner for this entire period. Only on this short ground, the order of the revisional authority at Annexure E is directed to stand modified by observing that the said revision order will be treated to have covered also clearances of fertilisers effected by the petitioner for September 1976 and the proof of payment for the said clearances by the petitioner to the fertilisers pool equalisation fund will be treated to have been validly submitted by the petitioner during the extended period. The order at Annexure E will read modified to the aforesaid extent. Moment this direction is issued, it becomes obvious that consequential order at Annexure F as passed by the Assistant Collector would not survive and would fall through. It is therefore, quashed and set aside.
6. In the result, earlier show case notice dated 22-12-1976 would not survive. Accordingly, the petitioner will stand allowed in terms of para 20(A) as well as in terms of para 20(B). There be no order as to costs, Rule made absolute.