Excise exemption scope cannot be split by treating partners as separate manufacturers; writ remedy was available against unlawful notices.

Excise exemption under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had to be applied to vegetable non-essential oils cleared by the manufacturer as identified under the statutory scheme, and not split by treating individual partners as separate manufacturers. Notices that proceeded on that erroneous basis were beyond the scope of the exemption notification and unlawfully curtailed the benefit. The availability of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the notices were outside the authorised exemption scheme and affected the petitioners' right to carry on business. The notices were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned excise notices, which treated the partners rather than the firm as the manufacturer for the purpose of slab exemption under the notification, were outside the scope of the exemption and liable to be quashed notwithstanding the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The exemption notification under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 granted the benefit to vegetable non-essential oils cleared by any manufacturer, and the statutory scheme in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 did not justify treating the individual partners as the manufacturers for the purpose of slicing up the exemption across firms. The notices proceeded on an erroneous construction that each partner was the manufacturer and therefore curtailed the exemption in a manner not supported by the notification. As the notices operated beyond the notification, the resulting levy was outside the authorised exemption scheme and amounted to interference with the petitioners' right to carry on business. In that situation, the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The notices were illegal, fell outside the exemption notification, and were quashed; the objection based on alternative remedy failed.

---