SUSANTA CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE present Rule was issued on 31st of October, 1979 at the instance of the writ petitioner a Company formerly known as "birpara Tea Company Limited". The petitioner Company has challenged the orders dated 28th of July, 1978 and 27th of October, 1976 in order to obtain exemption under the Notification dated June 16, 1976 bearing No. 198 in accordance with the petitioner's application dated May 31, 1978 and for other consequential reliefs on the grounds that the procedure mentioned by the respondent No. 1 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I Division in the order dated July 28, 1978 is not at all in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Notification No. 198 dated June 16, 1976. It is stated that in terms of the said Notification base periods and base clearances for each of the three categories of factories have to be determined separately in accordance with the procedure specified therein. It is further stated that there is no provision in the said Notification for fixing up the base clearances of those manufacturers who are having factories under different categories in a different way or by taking the total base clearances fixed up for categories 'b' and 'c of the said Notification. It is stated in details that the petitioner Company became the manufacturer with regard to the six different tea gardens purchased by it from different Sterling Companies on and from respective dates of the ownership thereof. For the purpose of granting relief to the petitioner under the said Notification, clearances of tea, if any, made by the Vendors of the said tea gardens prior to the date of the petitioner's ownership thereof cannot be taken into account. The said six tea gardens have to be categorised only on the basis of the date on which the clearances are made therefrom the first time by and on behalf of the petitioner. The said six tea gardens have to be categorised only on the basis of the date on which the clearances are made therefrom the first time by and on behalf of the petitioner. It is further placed on record that the respondent No. 1 had no right and/or authority or jurisdiction to hold that the factories which were in existence prior to April 1, 1976 but whose ownership has changed hands would not be as new factories or that the clearances from April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1976 have to be taken into account for determining the base periods irrespective of as to when the first clearance was made during the said period by or on behalf of the particular manufacturer. It is alleged that the Trade Notice dated July 1, 1976 issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta in so far as it provides that the factories which were in existence before April 1, 1976 but whose ownership has changed hands would not be considered as 'new factories', is illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. It is claimed that the levying and collecting central excise duty without granting the exemption conferred by the said Notification, the respondents are depriving the petitioner of its benefits without the authority of law. ( 2 ) THE writ petition is contested by the respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition. It is disclosed inter alia that in the year 1972-73 the petitioner entered into six separate agreements with Sterling Tea Companies for purchase of tea gardens including land, building, tea bushes, structures, including godowns, factory, Bungalow, plant and machinery except all dues, accruals, claims of realisation upto 31-12-1972 and all export rights relating thereto and all stocks and stores and all cash in hand and outstanding advances on December 31, 1972 relating to and belonging to the six different estates in India. It is further stated that the 'manufacturer' defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act includes a person who employs hired labour in production and/or manufacture of excisable goods and also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account. It is further stated that the 'manufacturer' defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act includes a person who employs hired labour in production and/or manufacture of excisable goods and also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account. As per terms in paras (11) and (12) of the agreement of purchase and after approval of sale by Reserve Bank of India, the purchaser virtually became the manufacturer in the true sense of the term with effect from 1-1-1973 though in fact the Vendor was manufacturing on behalf of the purchaser till the final transfer of ownership. The licence (L-4) could not be granted and the allotment P. L. A. Number could not be made in favour of the purchaser, until the sale was legalised by completion of conveyance after approval of sale by Reserve Bank of India. It is further disclosed that the intention of the Notification No. 198/76 dated 16-6-1976 was to give relief any Central Excise Duty on specified excisable goods to encourage higher production in sub-para (2) of Para 2 of the Notification it is stated inter alia that after comparing the specified goods, the base period and base clearance, in relation to factory shall be determined. The factories producing specified goods (lea) were in existence prior to 1973 and the assets and liabilities of the six factories were vested with the purchaser with effect from 1-1-1973. As far as the exemption Notification was concerned it related only to the specified goods cleared from a factory/factories during the specified period over the base clearances determined by the competent officer the duty exemption under the Scheme is available in respect of those clearances only from whatever factory, which are in excess of the base clearances, was arrived at. In cases where such factories fall under different categories for the purpose of calculating base clearances depending upon the time when the specified goods were (or deemed to be) cleared for the first time, such manufacturer, is not entitled to the exemption unless he exceeds his base clearances. It is asserted that the impugned orders of the Trade Notice are legal and valid and the allegations made by the petitioner are wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. ( 3 ) THE petitioner Company has, however, filed affidavit-in-reply controverting the allegations made by the respondents and reiterating the points stated in the main writ petition. It is asserted that the impugned orders of the Trade Notice are legal and valid and the allegations made by the petitioner are wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. ( 3 ) THE petitioner Company has, however, filed affidavit-in-reply controverting the allegations made by the respondents and reiterating the points stated in the main writ petition. ( 4 ) DR. Pal, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has argued that the Notification dated 25th of June, 1976 was issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules by which it was declared that exemption from duty will be allowed on so much which is in excess of the base clearances by and/or on behalf of the manufacturer in respect of the goods which are specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of the said Table. The said Notification further declares that the clearances made during any financial year shall be separately calculated for all the goods specified in column 2 of the Table. He has tried to draw the attention of the Court to paragraph 2 of the said Notification as to determining the factor of base clearance. He has submitted further that by Notification dated 9th November, 1976 it was provided that where the specified goods were cleared by or on behalf of the manufacturers from more than one factories for the first time earlier than the 1st of April, 1973, for every such factory, the base period shall in relation to all such factories be the year in which the aggregate of clearance of such goods for all such factories during any of the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 was the highest and the clearances from all such factories during such base period shall be the base clearances. The Trade Notice was issued on 1st of July, 1976 and the petitioner is challenging the same on the ground that the expression "new factory" does not appear in the Notification, on the other hand, the Notification postulates that the goods which are being cleared by or on behalf of the manufacturer will be entitled to exemption under the Notification in excess of the base clearances. If there has been any change of the ownership of the factory, then the predecessor-in-interest of that factory was a different manufacturer and the successor manufacturer is not entitled to get the benefit of the exemption on the basis of the base clearances made by the predecessor manufacturer. The main thrust of the argument of Dr. Pal is that the manufacturer is entitled to the exemption will be the same person throughout the period. The attention of the Court has been drawn on various paragraphs of agreements to enable the petitioner to get the reliefs in the manner as prayed for. It is further argued that the power to exempt and the terms and conditions subject to which such exemption can be granted is exclusively conferred upon the Government and the Board only. Any amendment and modification of that Notification can be made only by the Government and not by any other authority. The Collector by issuing a Trade Notice cannot add to the terms and conditions stipulated in the exemption Notification. Reference has been made to 1986 (23) ELT Page 48. Dr. Pal has emphasized upon the point that exemption Notification has been construed on the plain language of the Notification and if there are two views, the one favouring the tax-payer is to be adopted. ( 5 ) MR. Sanyal, the Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to the relevant Notification and the Trade Notice. He has submitted that if the petitioner Company has acquired the rights and liabilities of the owners of the six tea gardens the case as made out is thoroughly misconceived and the allegations made are unwarranted and uncalled for. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the Learned Advocates for both sides, it appears that if the exemption Notification does not contain a condition that its benefit should be passed on to the consumer the manufacturer can retain the benefit of exemption Notification. It is neither intended by notification nor is practical that the assessable value should be re-determined, to include in it the benefit of exemption Notification because the same has not been passed on to the consumer. Conditions for the availment of the exemption notification, should be a part of that notification. Conditions cannot be imposed by administrative directions, guidelines or press notes. Conditions for the availment of the exemption notification, should be a part of that notification. Conditions cannot be imposed by administrative directions, guidelines or press notes. Any Administrative action which is contrary to the fundamental provisions of the Constitution or a law would be without jurisdiction and a suit to invalidate such administrative action would not be barred because the remedy provided by that statute have not been exhausted by the petitioner. Relying upon the decision A. I. R. 1962 SC Page 1621, A. I. R. 1971 SC Page 870 the High Court at Delhi has decided the case of Modi Rubber Company Limited v. Union of India and Ors. that the excisable duty is chargeable on the value of goods at the time of clearance of goods from the factory and this fact does not fix the point of incident of the duty, it only fixes the point of assessment. It is true that in assessing the duty, the selling price of the goods will be taken into consideration but that it does not mean on selling price of the goods. ( 7 ) UPON looking to the materials on record, this Court does not appreciate the stand taken by the petitioner Company that it does not come within the definition of manufacturer as envisaged under Section 2 (f) of the Act. It is also not correct to allege that in order to file the exemption, the petitioner has to fulfil certain conditions unless the conditions are fulfilled the exemption cannot be obtained as a matter of course. The petitioner cannot take the advantage that since the sale transaction is not complete by execution of the conveyance although the petitioner Company is running the tea gardens and continuing the business for all purposes there will be different calculations to determine the base clearances. The contention as made by the petitioner Company does not appear to be correct. The challenge of the impugned orders and the Trade Notice appears to be without any merit. Consequently, the writ petition fails. The Rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Prayer for stay is refused.