https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43167 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. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:24:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43167 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43167