Excise exemption notifications must be read by plain language: mixed manufacture can attract the higher aggregate limit.

A writ petition challenging refusal of excise exemption was held maintainable because the existence of an appellate remedy did not, on these facts, provide full and effective relief. On construction of the exemption notifications, goods described as specified goods did not cease to be excisable goods, and a manufacturer clearing both specified goods and other excisable goods could claim the higher aggregate exemption limit where the scheme so allowed. The authorities were found to have wrongly confined the assessee to the lower limit, and the impugned excise orders were quashed with consequential refund relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy; (ii) whether, on a proper construction of the excise notifications, a manufacturer producing both specified goods and other excisable goods was entitled to the higher aggregate exemption limit of Rs. 20 lakhs.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The challenge was against orders refusing exemption and the existence of an appeal did not, by itself, oust writ jurisdiction where the remedy was not shown to be full and effective in the circumstances. The Court accepted the view that a discretionary writ could be entertained where the alternative remedy would not afford adequate relief.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy failed, and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, on a proper construction of the excise notifications, a manufacturer producing both specified goods and other excisable goods was entitled to the higher aggregate exemption limit of Rs. 20 lakhs.

Analysis: The Court read the definition of "excisable goods" together with the exemption notifications and held that goods described as "specified goods" did not cease to be excisable goods. The notification creating a lower limit for specified goods and a higher limit for excisable goods falling under more than one tariff item was construed as allowing the manufacturer to claim the general higher limit where the total clearances were of excisable goods and the facts showed mixed manufacture of specified and other excisable goods. On that construction, the authorities had wrongly confined the petitioner to the lower limit.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to exemption up to Rs. 20 lakhs, and the contrary orders were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned excise orders were quashed, the exemption claim was accepted on merits, and consequential refund directions were issued.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal exemption notification distinguishes between specified goods and excisable goods, specified goods do not lose their character as excisable goods, and the notification must be read according to its plain language so that the applicable exemption limit follows the true category of clearances under the scheme.

---