DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) BY means of these petitions under Art. 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the levy of excise duty on the fertilizers cleared by it during the period from April, 197 5/05/1976, denying to it the benefit of the Notification bearing No. 106 of 1974- ce dated 20/06/1971 as amended by the Notification bearing No. 191 of 1976-CE dated 12/06/1976 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules for brief ). ( 2 ) SINCE all these petitions involve identical questions of law and fact, we have thought it fit to dispose of them by this common judgment of ours. ( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to all these petitions may be summarised thus the petitioner in each case is a multi-unit Co-operative Society. It is engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers in its factories located at Kalol and Kandla in the State of Gujarat. It is a joint sector public undertaking. The Central government has substantial interest in this undertaking. ( 4 ) IN 1974 the Government of India introduced a scheme designed to ensure a uniform price of fertilizers at the point of sale to farmers throughout the country. In furtherance of the scheme, a fund in the name and style of the Fertilizers Pool Equalization Fund was created. The manufacturers of fertilizers were required to credit into this fund certain amounts notified from time to time as Fertilizer Pool Equalization charge on clearance of specified fertilizers effected by them. The entire scheme, including this fund, was administered by the Ministry of Agriculture. ( 5 ) IN exercise of its power under Rule 8 (1) of the Rules, the Central government issued one Notification bearing No. 108 of 1974-CE dated 20th june, 1974 exempting from payment of excise duty on fertilizers equivalent to the amount payable by the manufacturer in the aforesaid fund. A copy of this Notification is annexed as Annexure a to each petition. A copy of this Notification is annexed as Annexure a to each petition. Under that Notification it was provided that in order to earn exemption thereunder, the manufacturer was required to give undertaking to credit this specified amount in the aforesaid fund in accordance with the directions issued by the Central Government and to produce within sixty days of the date of clearance of the said fertilizers sufficient proof to the satisfaction of the proper officer that the amount was so credited. About two years thereafter in exercise of its power under Rule 8 (1) of the Rules the Central Government issued another Notification bearing No. 191 of 1976-CE dated 12/06/1976. A copy of that Notification is at Annexure a-1 to each petition. By the Notification at Annexure a-1 paragraph 2 in the earlier Notification at Annexure a was sought to be substituted by the new paragraph contained in the subsequent Notification at Annexure a-1. Thereunder it was provided that in order to earn the exemption given under the Notification the manufacturer was required to give undertaking to credit the specified amount into the above-referred fund in accordance with the directions issued by the Central Government and to produce within two calender months from the month of clearance of the said fertilizer or within such extended period as the Central Government may permit in this behalf sufficient proof to the satisfaction of the proper officer that the amount has been credited. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that formerly the amount due to be deposited in the fund was paid by the petitioner into the Reserve Bank of India through treasury challans by means of Cheques drawn on its Bankers. On clearance of such Cheques a receipted copy of the challan was handed over to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, sometime during 1976 the Ministry of Agriculture decided to change the system followed formerly for payment to the aforesaid fund. It was proposed that the said amount would be received departmentally by the Ministry of Agriculture itself. The details of the procedure however took sometime to be worked out. It is the case of the petitioner that the proof of payment could not be submitted within the stipulated time-limit. It was proposed that the said amount would be received departmentally by the Ministry of Agriculture itself. The details of the procedure however took sometime to be worked out. It is the case of the petitioner that the proof of payment could not be submitted within the stipulated time-limit. The excise authorities thereupon issued to the petitioner show cause notices demanding from it the excise duty payable on fertilizirs as the proof of payment in the aforesaid fund was not furnished within the stipulated time-limit for the periods from April, 197 5/11/1976, It may be mentioned at this stage that the facts of giving of undertaking by the petitioner to the effect that it would credit the amount in the aforesaid fund and payment of the undertaken amount in the fund are not in dispute between the parties. It is also not in dispute that the proof of payment in the aforesaid fund made by the petitioner in terms of its undertaking at the time of clearance of its fertilizers during the relevant period was not furnished within the stipulated time-limit. The petitioner caused reply to the above referred show cause notices. Its explanation for not furnishing the proof of payment within the stipulated time-limit was not accepted and the excise duty payable by it on the fertilizers cleared by it was levied for the periods mentioned in different show cause notices. Copies of the orders in original are annexed as Annexure c to each petition. The petitioners challenge to the orders in original in appeal failed. A copy of the order of the appellate authority is annexed as Annexure d to each petition. The petitioners approach to the revisional authority partly succeeded. The central Government extended the time-limit for furnishing proof of payment to the aforesaid fund by the petitioner for the period of June and July, 1976 and also of October and November, 1976. The Central Government in exercise of its revisional powers passed a common order on 20/06/1981 disposing of in all six revisional applications made before it by and on behalf of the petitioner. Its copy is annexed as Annexure e to each petition. The Central Government in exercise of its revisional powers passed a common order on 20/06/1981 disposing of in all six revisional applications made before it by and on behalf of the petitioner. Its copy is annexed as Annexure e to each petition. Pursuant to the order passed by the Central Government in exercise of its revisional powers, the excise authorities demanded the levy of excise duty in terms of its earlier order to the extent the timelimit for furnishing the proof was not extended by the Central Government. Thereupon the petitioner approached this Court by means of Special Civil application No. 2540 of 1981 challenging the correctness of such demand. The petitioner was advised to file different petitions for challenging different orders. Thereupon the petitioner has filed five more petitions bearing Special civil Applications Nos. 4055 of 1991 to 4059 of 1991. Since Special civil Application No. 2540 of 1981 was confined to the demand of excise duty pertaining to the months of October and November, 19. 76 in respect of which the Central Government in exercise of its revisional powers extended the time-limit for furnishing the proof of payment by the petitioner in the aforesaid fund, it did not survive and was accordingly withdrawn today. So far as Special Civil Application No. 4059 of 1991 is concerned, it has been separately disposed of today in favour of the petitioner by means of our judgment dictated today. ( 7 ) SO far as the present petitions are concerned, in each of them as aforesaid the payment of money in the aforesaid fund by the petitioner in terms of the undertaking and within the stipulated time-limit is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not furnish the requisite proof of such payment within the stipulated time-limit. All such payments were prior to the Notification at Annexure a-1. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that there was no provision for extension of the time-limit for furnishing the proof of such payment as provided in the subsequent Notification at Annexure a-1. It is therefore necessary to look at the Notification at Annexure a to find out what conditions were required to be fulfilled by the petitioner to avail the exemption granted thereunder. It is therefore necessary to look at the Notification at Annexure a to find out what conditions were required to be fulfilled by the petitioner to avail the exemption granted thereunder. ( 8 ) EVEN at the cost of repetition it may be mentioned that under the Notification at Annexure a what was required to be done by the petitioner, in order to earn the exemption thereunder, was to give an undertaking at the time of clearance of the concerned fertilizers to the effect that it would credit the specified amount in the aforesaid fund in accordance with the directions issued by the Central government and to produce within sixty days of the clearance of the said fertilizer sufficient proof to the satisfaction of the proper officer that the amount was so credited. These conditions postulate three contingencies: (i) giving of the undertaking at the time of clearance for crediting the specified amount in the aforesaid fund, (ii) payment of such amount in the aforesaid fund in terms of the undertaking, and (iii) furnishing proof of such payment within sixty days of the date of clearance of the said fertilizer. It needs no telling that, if the petitioner fulfilled these three conditions, it would be entitled to earn exemption under the said Notification at annexure a. So far as the fulfilment of first two conditions are concerned, the petitioner has indisputedly fulfilled them. So far as the third condition is concerned, the petitioner has admittedly not been able to furnish the proof within the stipulated time-limit. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did furnish the proof of payment though belatedly, that is, after the stipulated time-limit. It is thus clear that the first two conditions are fully complied with and the third condition is substantially complied with by the petitioner. The question is whether or not the petitioner can be denied the exemption on fully complying with the first two conditions and substantially complying with the third condition mentioned in the Notification at annexure a. ( 9 ) IN this connection a reference deserves to be made the ruling of the Supreme court in the case of Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. , reported in 1990 (47) elt 500 : [1992 (1) GLR 123 (SC)]. It deals with the question of interpretation of an exemption Notification. It deals with the question of interpretation of an exemption Notification. It has been held therein (at page No. 126 para 4 of glr) :"literally exemption is freedom from liability, tax or duty. F`iscally it may assume varying shapes, specially in a growing economy. For instance tax holiday to new units, concessional rate of tax to goods or persons for limited period or with the specific objective etc. That is why its constructioa, unlike charging provision, has to be tested on different touchstone. In fact an exemption provision is like an exception and on normal principle of interpretation of statutes it is construed strictly either because of legislative intention or on economic justification of inequitable burden or progressive approach of fiscal provisions intended to augment state revenue. But once exception or exemption becomes applicable no rule of principle requires it to be of construed strictly. Liberal and strict construction of an exemption provision are to be invoked at different stages of interpreting it. When the question is whether a subject falls in the notification or in the exemption clse then it being in nature of exception is to be construed strictly and against the subject but once ambiguity or doubt about applicability is lifted and the subject falls in the notification then full play has to be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction, A notification has to be read in its entirety and construed as a whole. But a construction which results in in equitable results and is incongruous is to be avoided. "it is thus clear that an exemption Notification has to be construed in the light of the contents thereof. As aforesaid the Notification at Annexure a postulates three conditions for earning the exemption provided thereunder. The first two conditions have to be complied with in full in order to earn the exemption thereunder. Payment of contribution in the aforesaid fund is a condition precedent for claiming the exemption thereunder. The goods would not be allowed to be cleared unless undertaking to the effect of payment of contribution in the fund is given. The condition of giving undertaking will have also therefore to be treated as a condition precedent. So far as furnishing of proof is concerned, it is not always possible to comply with it fully within the stipulated time-limit for diverse reasons. The condition of giving undertaking will have also therefore to be treated as a condition precedent. So far as furnishing of proof is concerned, it is not always possible to comply with it fully within the stipulated time-limit for diverse reasons. It may be noted that such proof has to be furnished to the satisfaction of the proper officer. It is possible that the proof of payment furnished by the manufacturer may not be to the satisfaction of the proper officer and in order to furnish such satisfactory proof the stipulated time-limit may prove short. It is possible that the proper officer might not be available for some reason when the manufacturer goes to him within the stipulated time-limit to furnish the proof of such payment. So far as giving of the undertaking and making of the payment in the aforesaid fund are concerned, they are within the control of the manufacturer. So far as furnishing sufficient proof of payment to the satisfaction of the proper officer is concerned, it is often beyond the control of the manufacturer. It may be that the amount is deposited in the Reserve bank of India and the receipted challan is not received back within the stipulated time-limit and the sufficient proof cannot be furnished within the stipulated time-limit. It may be that the receipted challan is received within the timelimit and yet it gets destroyed before it is produced before the proper officer and its duplicate may not be received within the stipulated time-limit. A condition, the fulfilment of which depends partly on the person and partly on the outside agency, cannot be said to be a mandatory condition. It has to be treated as a directory condition and its substantial compliance would be sufficient to earn the benefit for which such condition is prescribed. We are therefore of the view that the first two conditions in the Notification at Annexure a for the purpose of claiming the exemption thereunder are mandatory and the third condition regarding furnishing of the sufficient proof thereof to the satisfaction of the proper officer is directory. As aforesaid, the petitioner has complied with the mandatory conditions in full and substantially complied with the directory condition. As aforesaid, the petitioner has complied with the mandatory conditions in full and substantially complied with the directory condition. Even at the costs of repetition, we reiterate that there is no dispute that sufficient proof was furnished, if belatedly, by the petitioner regarding payment of the due money in the aforesaid fund. ( 10 ) THE same result will ensue on examining the question from a different angle. As aforesaid, payment of the specified amount in the aforesaid fund was a must for earning the exemption under the Notification at Annexure a. That would certainly be a substantive part of the said notification at Annexure a. The first two conditions thereof would therefore constitute a substantive part. It cannot be gainsaid that this substantive part has to be complied in toto for earning the exemption thereunder. Furnishing of proof of payment would be in the nature of a procedural part. The third condition in the Notification at Annexure a would thus constitute a procedural part. This procedural part would require liberal construction. Substantial compliance of the third condition, being the procedural part of the Notification at Annexure a should be sufficient to earn the exemption thereunder. This interpretation of the Notification at Annexure a by us is in consonance with the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court in Wood Papers Ltd. s case (supra ). ( 11 ) WE should like to make it clear at this stage that this interpretation of ours need not and should not mean to allow the manufacturer to claim the exemption under the Notification at Annexure a even if he remains negligent in furnishing the proof of payment of the specified amount in the aforesaid fund within the stipulated time-limit. The exemption thereunder can be availed of for belated production of proof by such manufacturer for the reason or reasons beyond his control. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Hansraj Gordhandas v. H. H. Dave, Collector of Central Excise and Customs, reported in AIR 1970 sc 755 in support of his submission that the Notification of exemption has to be interpreted by the words which are employed to effectuate the legislative intent and not by the object which the rule making authority had in mind while issuing it. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in its aforesaid ruling in Hansraj gordhandass case (supra ). We have not taken into consideration the object which the rule making authority had in mind at the time of issuing the notification at Annexure a for the purpose of interpreting it. We have interpreted the Notification at Annexure a by the language used therein. The aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court in Hansraj Gordhandass case (supra) has been explained in its recent ruling in Wood Papers Ltd. s case (sup.-a ). In that view of the matter, the ruling of the Supreme Court in hansraj Gordhandass case (supra) will be of no assistance to the respondents in this case. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents has also invited our attention to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of International Cotton Corpn. (P) Lid. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Hubli reported in 1975 (3) SCC 585 . It has been held therein that concession is not a matter of right. There cannot be any quarrel with this principle of law as enunciated in the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court in International Cotton Corpn. (P) Ltd. s case (supra ). However, when a concession or a benefit or an exemption is granted on fulfilment of certain conditions and such conditions are fulfilled by the party to whom such benefit or concession or exemption is given, such person cannot be denied such benefit or concession or exemption as the case may be. If such person does not fulfil any of the conditions, he cannot claim grant of concession as a matter of right on fulfilment of some out of several conditions prescribed therein. ( 14 ) IN view of our aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the demands of excise duty from the petitioner for the relevant periods made by the excise authorities have to be branded as illegal and invalid. The demand order at Annexure c to each petition as affirmed in appeal by the order at Annexure d to each petition to the extent affirmed in the revisional order at Annexure e to each petition is hereby quashed and set aside. ( 15 ) IN the result, all these petitions succeed. The demand order at Annexure c to each petition as affirmed in appeal by the order at Annexure d to each petition to the extent affirmed in the revisional order at Annexure e to each petition is hereby quashed and set aside. ( 15 ) IN the result, all these petitions succeed. Rule issued in each of them is accordingly made absolute however with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. .