Excise rebate entitlement depends on base-period operation, not identical prior-year monthly production.

Entitlement to excise rebate under the notification depended on whether the factory had worked during the base period, not on production having occurred in the identical corresponding months of the preceding year. Nil production in May-June 1972 did not, by itself, defeat the assessee's claim where the base-period condition was satisfied. The contrary demand was therefore unsustainable, and the rebate was held admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to rebate under the excise notification despite nil production in the corresponding months of the preceding year.

Analysis: The rebate notification was to be applied with reference to the factory having worked during the base period, and not by insisting that production must also have occurred in the identical corresponding months of the preceding year. Nil production in May-June 1972 did not, by itself, defeat the entitlement where the factory had worked during the relevant base period. The demand founded on the contrary view was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the petitioner was held entitled to the rebate.

Ratio Decidendi: Entitlement to rebate under the notification depended on satisfying the base-period condition, and absence of production in the corresponding months of the preceding year did not by itself disentitle the assessee.

---