Excise exemption applies to the manufacturer as one entity, so clearances from all units must be aggregated for eligibility.

The concessional excise duty exemption under Notification No. 47/1972 was treated as applying to the manufacturer as a single entity, not separately to each factory. The notification made eligibility depend on the total value of tyres cleared by that manufacturer in the preceding financial year, and its language did not tie the concession to licensed premises or individual units. Separate excise licences for different factories did not expand the exemption. Because the Madras and Goa units belonged to the same manufacturer, their clearances had to be aggregated for testing the monetary threshold, and the concessional rate was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concessional rate of excise duty under Notification No. 47/1972 dated 17-3-1972 was able separately for each factory owned by the same manufacturer, or whether the eligibility condition had to be tested with reference to the manufacturer as a single entity.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption to tyres cleared by the manufacturer and made eligibility dependent on the total value of tyres cleared by that manufacturer during the preceding financial year. The language of the notification did not link the concession to licensed premises or to each factory separately. Separate excise licences for different premises under the licensing provisions did not enlarge the scope of the exemption. On the facts, both the Madras and Goa units belonged to the same manufacturer, so the clearances had to be aggregated for testing the monetary threshold.

Conclusion: The exemption was held to apply to the manufacturer and not to each factory separately, and the petitioners were not entitled to the concessional rate.

---