SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, Vivek Kumar Daga, is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. He is a manufacturer of metal containers and wire handles. He is also a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was granted a provisional certificate on 8th September, 1977 by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Rule 3 (4) (ii) Of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The case of the petitioner is that this certificate was granted by the Commissioner because the Commissioner was satisfied that the petitioner had established the bona fide business for manufacturing goods in West Bengal for sale. One of the conditions of granting provisional certificate under Rule 3 (4) (ii) was that the petitioner shall apply to the Commercial Tax Officer for registration within a week from the date when his total sales in respect of manufactured goods in a year exceeded Rs. 10,000 in value for 'the first time. ( 3 ) THE provisional certificate under Rule 3 (4) (ii) was renewed for the period 1st April, 1978 to 31st July, 1978 as production could not be started by the petitioner till 31st March, 1978. The case of the petitioner is that since the sales of the manufactured goods exceeded Rs. 10,000 in value, the petitioner made an application before the Commercial Tax Officer and registration was granted by the Commercial Tax Officer to the petitioner under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, as manufacturer of metal containers. It was noted in the proceedings for registration by the Commercial Tax Officer that the first sale of manufactured goods took place in the petitioner's factory on 27th April, 1978 after its production on 25th April, 1978. ( 4 ) IT has also been asserted by the petitioner that after starting production/manufacture of goods for sale on 25th April, 1978 the petitioner applied for registration under the Directorate of Cottage and Small-scale Industries, Government of West Bengal, and upon being satisfied about the starting of production, the petitioner was granted registration as a small-scale industrial unit on 22nd May, 1978 by the Director, Cottage and Small-scale Industries. ( 5 ) RULE 3 (66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 originally provided for tax holiday for a period of three years in respect of sales by newly set up small-scale industry of goods if the conditions laid down in that rule were fulfilled. By a notification issued on 1st April, 1981, Rule 3 (66) was amended and the period of tax holiday was extended for five years if the industry was situated within the area of the Calcutta Metropolitan District or seven years if it was situated elsewhere in West Bengal. An explanation was added to Rule 3 (66) by which the benefit of tax holiday of the extended period of five years or seven years as the case may be was made available to such small-scale industries which had started production for the first time after 31st March, 1978. ( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had done some fabrication work on materials supplied by customers for which only labour charges were realised on or before 31st March, 1978. The petitioner, however, actually started production and sale of containers in the factory of the petitioner after 1st April, 1978. It is on record that for the first time the petitioner manufactured goods in its factory on 25th April, 1978 and the goods were sold on 27th April, 1978. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there is no reason why the extended benefit of tax holiday for a period of five years in respect of goods manufactured by the newly set up small-scale industry should not be extended to the industrial unit of the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE petitioner, who had been duly granted an eligibility certificate for the earlier periods under Rule 3 (66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, applied for renewal of that certificate for a further period of 12 months from 27th April, 1981 to 26th April, 1982. The application which was made on 29th April, 1981 was rejected on the ground that production in the industrial unit of the petitioner had started prior to 1st April, 1978. ( 8 ) THE Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, in his order dated 12th August, 1981 recorded that the petitioner had been granted an eligibility certificate under Rule 3 (66) for the period 1st April, 1980 to 26th April, 1981. ( 8 ) THE Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, in his order dated 12th August, 1981 recorded that the petitioner had been granted an eligibility certificate under Rule 3 (66) for the period 1st April, 1980 to 26th April, 1981. No dealer was entitled for exemption beyond three years from the date of his first sale of manufactured goods. The rule was amended on 1st April, 1981 extending exemption to a period of five years in case of an industry, situated within the area of the Calcutta Metropolitan District. This extension could apply to such industries which had started production for the first time after 31st March, 1978. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, therefore, held in his order that the petitioner effected first sale of his manufactured goods on 27th April, 1978, but it started production prior to 31st March, 1978. The dealer had regularly manufactured products in his factory out of materials supplied by others. The dealer's own production records clearly show that regular productions were made prior to 31st March, 1978. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, therefore, held that the dealer's production started prior to 31st March, 1978. His application for renewal of eligibility certificate beyond three years from his first sale was, therefore, rejected. ( 9 ) THE petitioner made a revision application against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, where it was noted that there was no dispute that the first sale of the petitioner's manufactured goods took place on 27th April, 1978. It was recorded that the dispute in this case centered around the point "as to whether the petitioner's unit started production before 31st March, 1978 or after 31st March, 1978". It was observed : the petitioner's contention is that the term 'production' appearing in item (iii) of the explanation of Sub-clause (i) of Clause (66) of Rule 3 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 as it stood during the material period of time should exclusively refer to and mean the production of the petitioner's own goods in their unit. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Commissioner came to conclusion that the date of production should refer to the date from which the petitioner's industrial unit became operative, and in the instant case, in his opinion, the unit of the petitioner became operative only before 31st March, 1978. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Commissioner came to conclusion that the date of production should refer to the date from which the petitioner's industrial unit became operative, and in the instant case, in his opinion, the unit of the petitioner became operative only before 31st March, 1978. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, the facts of this case are not in dispute. It is not disputed by the petitioner that it had done some fabrication work prior to 31st March, 1978 in his factory. The respondents have not disputed the assertion of the petitioner that actual production of the petitioner's own goods started after 31st March, 1978. The only question, therefore, that fell for determination before the Additional Commissioner was that whether the fabrication work done by the petitioner prior to 31st March, 1978 disentitled the petitioner from getting the benefit of the extended period of tax holiday. The Additional Commissioner in his order dated 2nd September, 1985 held that the word "production" could not be restricted to mean "the production of the goods belonging to the owner of the unit alone". It was held that the petitioner had started production "even before 31st March, 1978", when he undertook to do fabrication work for other customers in his newly set up industrial unit. ( 11 ) THE petitioner has challenged the decisions of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. ( 12 ) RULE 3 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 lays down that in calculating taxable turnover of the dealer, certain deductions will have to be allowed from its gross turnover. The deductions are set out in the various sub-clauses of Rule 3. Rule 3 (66) enables a dealer to deduct from his gross turnover "sales by newly set up small-scale industry of goods manufactured by it since the date of its first sale of such manufactured goods". The period of exemption was originally for three years from "the date of its first sale of such manufactured goods". Therefore, the period of exemption is to be calculated from the date of the "first sale of such manufactured goods". The explanation that was inserted with effect from 1st April, 1981 made it clear that "the newly set up small-scale industry means a new industrial unit which starts production for the first time after 31st March, 1978, but not later than the 14th March, 1983". The explanation that was inserted with effect from 1st April, 1981 made it clear that "the newly set up small-scale industry means a new industrial unit which starts production for the first time after 31st March, 1978, but not later than the 14th March, 1983". ( 13 ) THE question in this case is can the industrial unit of the petitioner which did some fabrication or job contract before 31st March, 1978 be regarded as to have commenced production before 31st March, 1978. The word "production" has not been defined by the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. The word "manufacture", however, has been defined to mean under Section 2 (dd) "producing, making, extracting, altering, ornamenting, blending, finishing or otherwise processing, treating or adopting any goods". The word "manufacture", however, does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed by the rules. The word "goods" has been defined by Section 2 (d) to include all kinds of movable property other than actionable claims, stocks, shares or securities. The word "sales" has been defined to mean generally under Section 2 (g) "any transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of contract". ( 14 ) THE object of Rule 3 (66) is to encourage setting up of small-scale industries for manufacture of goods in the State. With this object in view, it has been provided that sales of goods manufactured by a newly set up small-scale industry will not be liable to tax for a period of five years since the date of its first sale of such manufactured goods. Therefore, if there is a time-lag between setting up of the small-scale industry and the date of its first sale, the material point of time is not the date of setting up of the industry but the date of the first sale of such manufactured goods. The explanation which has been added has to be understood in the background of the main clause. The explanation provides, inter alia, that a new industrial unit will mean industrial unit which starts production for the first time after 31st March, 1978. The term "production" has to be understood bearing in mind the object and the scheme of the rule. The word "production" which is spoken of in explanation (iii) is production of goods for sale which qualifies for exemption. The term "production" has to be understood bearing in mind the object and the scheme of the rule. The word "production" which is spoken of in explanation (iii) is production of goods for sale which qualifies for exemption. If an industry has been set up which is doing some job work, then there is no question of production and sale of goods. The provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, were not attracted in such a situation. The grant of exemption is "from the date of its first sale of such manufactured goods". Therefore, the sale that qualifies for exemption is linked up with the manufacture of goods by the newly set up small-scale industry. The period of exemption cannot be curtailed by giving an unduly wide meaning to the expression "production" to include fabrication work. ( 15 ) IT is to be borne in mind that the well-known rule of construction is that in case of doubt, a fiscal statute is to be construed in favour of the tax-payer. It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandulal Harjiwandas v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 63 ITR 627 that a provision for exemption or relief should be so construed as to effectuate the object of the legislature and not to defeat it. ( 16 ) THE intention of the legislature clearly is to grant tax benefit to newly set up small-scale industries. In this case, there is no dispute that a small-scale industry has been set up which otherwise fulfils all the requirements of law to merit the benefit of tax exemption. The period of the benefit has been extended from three years to five years. In order to qualify for this extended period, it must be shown that production in the newly set up industry started after 31st March, 1978. In that context, it has to be seen what is the meaning of the word "production". Does it mean production of goods on which sales tax is not leviable ? The eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner valid from 1st April, 1980 to 30th June, 1980 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clearly states that the small-scale industrial unit was "set up to manufacture metal containers for sale and the first sale of manufactured goods by the said industry was made on 27th April, 1978". The eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner valid from 1st April, 1980 to 30th June, 1980 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clearly states that the small-scale industrial unit was "set up to manufacture metal containers for sale and the first sale of manufactured goods by the said industry was made on 27th April, 1978". Therefore, the petitioner which produced "metal containers for sale" for the first time after 31st March, 1978 is entitled to get the benefit of the extended period under Rule 3 (66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, read with the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. ( 17 ) THE writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The impugned orders dated 12th August, 1981, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Calcutta, and order dated 2nd September, 1985 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, are quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of the eligibility"certificate afresh and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. There will be no order as to costs.