Judgment :- These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing on Thursday the 18th day of November 1965 upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 25-3-1963 and made herein, and the Counter affidavit filed herein and the records pertaining to the Demand No. 2/61-62, dated 20-12-1961 and notice bearing reference No. 61417/61, dated 2-8-1962 on the file of the respondent herein and comprised in the return of the respondent herein to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S.K.L. Ratan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. G. Ramanujam Central Government Standing Counsel, Madras on behalf of the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order : 2.Under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, the manufacture of pigments, colours, paints, enamels, varnishes, blacks and cellulose lacquers is liable to excise duty. By certain Government notifications issued under the authority of Rule 8 of the rules framed under the Act, the Government exempted a certain quantity so manufactured. By such a notification issued in 1956, the entire output of the manufacture of certain specified items the total of which did not exceed 50 tons, per year was wholly exempt from excise duty. This notification was superseded by a notification issued on the 1st of October, 1960. That stated thus : "The Central Government hereby exempt the goods specified in Column 1 of the table below which are cleared by any manufacturer for home consumption on or after the first day of April of any financial year in the circumstances and to the extent specified in the corresponding entries in Column 2 and 3 respectively of the said table from so much of the duty leviable thereon as is in excess of the amount specified in the corresponding entries in Column 4 thereof." * 3.The table set out various clauses of paint materials in column 1. In column 2, the limit of output of the manufacturer was indicated, that is to say, if the output exceeded certain particular quantities specified, the exemption was not available. If the manufacture was within that limit, Column 3 granted certain slab rates of duty on the quantity up to the limit mentioned instead of the higher rates of duty specified in the Schedule to the Act. If the manufacture was within that limit, Column 3 granted certain slab rates of duty on the quantity up to the limit mentioned instead of the higher rates of duty specified in the Schedule to the Act. Broadly stated, this exemption was available to persons who may be called small manufacturers whose output did not exceed a certain figure, and even with regard to the rate, certain concessions were allowed up to the limit indicated. The petitioners started manufacture in September, 1958. They took no licence under the Central Excise and Salt Act. It was only in August 1961, that the officers of the Department detected the manufacture by the petitioners. After that date, the petitioners were taking out licences. On a verification of the Accounts of the petitioners, demands were issued by the Department under Rule 10A in respect of the excise duty leviable on the quantities manufactured by the petitioners during various periods. In these two writ petitions, the demands are in respect of the period 1-1-1960 to 30-9-1960 (W.P. No. 286 of 1963) and for the period 1-10-1960 to 28-2-1961 (W.P. No. 287 of 1963). The petitioner appealed, but the appeals were not entertained, as the duty demanded was not paid which under the rules is a condition prerequisite to the entertainment of an appeal. In these writ petitions, the petitioner claims that these demands are illegal in so far as the Department has not given him the exemption contemplated by the notifications referred to earlier. It is alleged that the exemption was wrongly refused to be granted on the ground that the petitioner was during the period in question not a licensed manufacturer and had not complied with the requirements of the other provisions of the Act and the rules. It is the contention of the petitioner that whether a manufacturer had taken out the licence or not, the exemption should have been granted. 4.On behalf of the Department, it is pointed out that paint is an excisable commodity, Section 6 of the Act requires that the licence to manufacture any excisable commodity should be obtained failure to do so inviting certain penal consequences laid down in the Act. According to the rules framed under the Act, no excisable goods shall be removed from the place of manufacture except in the manner prescribed and unless duty has been paid. According to the rules framed under the Act, no excisable goods shall be removed from the place of manufacture except in the manner prescribed and unless duty has been paid. It is admitted that the Government notifications were in force during the relevant periods. The contention has been taken that this statutory exemption can be enjoyed only by persons who manufacture the goods under proper excise control. 5.Though certain other grounds justifying the denial of exemption have been raised in the counter-affidavit, I do not propose to consider them, for the matter has been argued only on the limited question whether a person who has not conformed to the requirements of the Act is nevertheless entitled to the exemption contemplated by the notifications. 6.The charging section is Section 3, which provides for the levy and collection of the duties of excise 'in such manner as may be prescribed'. As already stated, Section 6 of the Act enacts that no person shall engage in the production or manufacture or any excisable goods except under the authority and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted under the Act. Rule 9 of the rules framed under the Act provides for the time and manner of payment of duty. It states that no excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are produced, whether for consumption, export or manufacture of any other commodity, until excise duty leviable thereon has been paid at such place and in such manner as is prescribed in these rules and except on presentation of an application in the proper form and on obtaining the permission of the proper officer; that is to say, before the goods can be removed from the premises where they are manufactured, an application has to be made to the Collector stating the quantity sought to be removed and on his assessment of the duty thereon, the duty has to be paid before the goods can be removed. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not obtain any licence during the relevant period and that the removals of the excisable goods from the premises were effected without any authority and without the pre-payment of the excise duty leviable thereon. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not obtain any licence during the relevant period and that the removals of the excisable goods from the premises were effected without any authority and without the pre-payment of the excise duty leviable thereon. The question is whether in those circumstances when the default of the petitioner has been discovered on a subsequent date and the duty leviable on the goods is demanded of him he can maintain the claim that exemption should be granted to him. Mr. Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that in so far as the petitioner's failure to take out a licence is concerned, there were certain proceedings against them which came to an end by the levy of a fee for compounding the offence. He claims that the petitioners cannot be subjected to a second punishment by the refusal of the grant of the exemption. I am unable to agree that the grant of the exemption can be correlated to any penalty provided under the Act. Whether or not an exemption is available has to be examined only on the basis of the notification providing for the exemption. It is common place that an exemption has to be strictly construed and a person seeking exemption must bring himself within the provision granting the exemption.7Turning to the notification of the year 1960, it . purports to grant exemption only in respect of goods which are cleared by any manufacturer for home consumption. Under Rule 9, duty is leviable on goods whether they are cleared for home consumption or export or to be used in the manufacture of any other commodity. Strictly examined, therefore, the exemption is only for clearances for home consumption and not for clearances for any of the other two purposes. Secondly, the liability to pay duty arises on the occasion of the clearance and equally the exemption is available only at the time of the clearance. In terms, therefore, the notification cannot be construed disassociating the grant of exemption from the levy of duty. The two are expected to be simultaneous in their scope and effect. The exemption cannot to my mind be claimed except at the time of the clearance, at which time the petitioners have to pay duty. In terms, therefore, the notification cannot be construed disassociating the grant of exemption from the levy of duty. The two are expected to be simultaneous in their scope and effect. The exemption cannot to my mind be claimed except at the time of the clearance, at which time the petitioners have to pay duty. In the instance case, it is not denied that these clearances were effected without any authority and no duty was paid at the time of such clearances. It is not even established whether the clearances were for the purpose mentioned in the notification. The demands are under Rule 10A and not under Rule 9. Against this background, the claim to exemption must necessarily fail. It is not open to the petitioners to say that because duty is demanded of them today, they can invoke the exemption clause. That serves to dispose of the contention relevant to W.P. No. 287 of 1963. 8.The earlier notification of 1956 is not so elaborately worded as the later notification. It merely states that where the total output of a manufacturer of such items as indicated does not exceed 50 tons, such output shall be wholly exempt from the excise duty leviable thereon. The expression 'leviable thereon, attracts the application of Rule 9, for the leviability is strictly at the time of clearance from the factory. It should follow that a like interpretation as that accorded to the notification of 1960 should be given in this case also, for the computation of the duty payable can be made only on the application of the exemption provision. The exemption cannot be therefore claimed except at the time when the duty is leviable, that is to say, at the time of the clearance. It follows that the claim made in N.P. No. 286 of 1963 has also to fail.The petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.