Exemption notification conditions must be read as written, and clearance-limit provisos cannot override the operative exemption clause.

Exemption notifications must be applied according to their own terms, and a proviso cannot be extended beyond the clearance-limit restriction it actually imposes. The document states that the bar relied on by the department under paragraph 3 and the proviso to Notifications No. 83/83-C.E. and 85/85-C.E. was inapplicable because it governed the aggregate value of factory clearances in a financial year, not clause (ii) of the notifications. As the appellants' clearances stayed within the limit prescribed in paragraph 2, the denial of exemption could not be sustained, and consequential refund relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notifications No. 83/83-C.E. and 85/85-C.E. despite the objections based on paragraph 3 and the proviso relating to clearance limits.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the correct scope of the exemption notifications. The lower appellate authority had relied on paragraph 3 and the proviso to deny relief, but those provisions were held to be inapplicable on the facts. The proviso was confined to restricting the aggregate value of clearances from a factory in a financial year and did not govern clause (ii) of the notifications. Since the appellants' clearances remained within the limits prescribed in paragraph 2 of the relevant notifications, the bar invoked by the department could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the benefit of the exemption notifications and to consequential refund relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Conditions in an exemption notification must be applied according to their own terms, and a proviso cannot be extended to defeat a substantive exemption where the assessee satisfies the prescribed clearance limit in the operative clause.

---