ORDER 1. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the concessional rates of levy of excise duty under Notification No. 193/82 dated 11-6-1982 for the entire production during May to September 1982. 2. Before the said notification (hereinafter referred to as "the second notification") came into force, an earlier notification being Notification No. 132/82 dated 21-4-1982 had granted certain concessional rates of excise duty but, by virtue of para 4 of that notification, excludedt sugar factories from the purview of the benefit. 3. The appellant is a sugar factory. Because the second notification extended the benefit to sugar factories, the appellant put in a rebate claim before the Excise Authorities in respect of its production from May to September 1982. This was denied by the Excise Authorities on the ground that the second notification had only come intoeffect on 11-6-1982. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon the decision •of this Court in Belapur Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd. v. CCE1 in which this Court had held that since the second notification substituted the earlier exclusionary clause by the inc1usionary one, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification for the period in question. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, contends that there was no question of the retrospective effect of the notification as had been laid down by this Court in Cannanore Spg. Collector of Customs and Central Excise2. 6. In our opinion there is really no question of the second notification a operating retrospectively. The "sugar year" according to the notifications commenced on 1st October and ended with 30th September of the year following. Therefore, both the notifications came into force during the sugar year in question. The period of benefit was the same. Therefore, even if the sugar factories like the appellant were covered by the benefit of the notification for the first time on 11-6-1982, nevertheless they would be b entitled to the benefit for the period 1-5-1982 to 30-9-1982. The decision of the Tribunal is accordingly set aside. As there appears to be no dispute with regard to the facts in question, the authorities will now process the claim of the appellant in accordance with law. 7. The appeal is disposed of.