Rebate under exemption notification turns on work during the defined base period, not month-by-month prior-year production.

Rebate under the exemption notifications could not be denied merely because the factory had no production in May and June 1973, where it had in fact worked during the defined base period of 1-10-1972 to 30-9-1973. The proviso excluding a factory that did not work during the base period had to be read consistently with the Explanation fixing that period. On that construction, the petitioner's eligibility depended on work during the base period, not on production in each corresponding month of the previous year. The demand to recover the rebate was therefore illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to the rebate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to rebate under the exemption notifications despite no production in the corresponding months of the preceding year, where the factory had worked during the defined base period.

Analysis: The notification of 4-10-1973, as amended on 20-4-1974, granted rebate on excess production and contained an Explanation defining the base period as 1-10-1972 to 30-9-1973. The proviso denying exemption to a factory which did not work during the base period had to be read with that definition. Since the petitioner's factory admittedly worked during the base period, the mere absence of production in May and June, 1973 did not attract the proviso. The Court followed the earlier decision on similar notifications and held that rebate could not be denied on the Department's reading.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the rebate, and the demand for recovery of the rebate was illegal.

---