( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave is against the dismissal of the appellants writ petition filed in the Gujarat High court wherein the order dated 30-4-1991 passed by the Assistant Collector, central Excise, Bhavnagar, rejecting the appellants claim for refund of Rs 18,61,844 was rejected. This claim for refund was made by the appellant in a writ petition on the basis of the notification dated 1/3/1987 issued by the central government in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 57-K of the central Excise Rules, 1944. By that notification, a concession was given to certain manufacturers of vegetable products by way of set-off of duty on use of specified minor oils in the manufacture of their product. The appellants claim in the writ petition was that for the period commencing from 1/3/1987 to 24/8/1989 it was entitled to the concession under that notification for an amount of Rs 18,61,844 only which had wrongly been rejected by the Assistant Collector. The High court having dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in it, this appeal has been filed by special leave. ( 2 ) IN our opinion, the appeal must fail on one, ground alone. The High court has clearly held as under: "moreover it is nowhere pointed out that it was brought to the notice of the Excise Officer concerned that all the relevant conditions for availing of the credit were fulfilled by the assessee and even so the Excise Officer refused to grant credit. " ( 3 ) ON this finding of the High court, there could be no basis to allow the appellants claim. The aforesaid notification prescribes certain conditions on the fulfilment of which alone the benefit therein could be availed of by the manufacturers. The very first condition is prescribed there, as under: "the credit shall be taken only in respect of the quantity of oil subjected to hydrogenation on or after the 1st day of March, 1987 for the manufacture of the said final products and the credit shall be taken only on the date on which the oil has been so hydrogenated. " ( 4 ) IT is clear from the above condition that the credit claimed by the manufacturer could be taken only on the date on which the oil had been so hydrogenated. " ( 4 ) IT is clear from the above condition that the credit claimed by the manufacturer could be taken only on the date on which the oil had been so hydrogenated. This is an express requirement prescribed in the very first a condition for claiming the credit under that notification. There is no dispute that the credit claimed by the manufacturer which constitutes the subject- matter of the claim was not taken on the date on which the oil was so hydrogenated, that is, the date specified for this purpose in the notification itself. There can be no doubt that the concessional benefit claimed under the notification can be availed of only in the manner prescribed therein and on fulfilment of the conditions specified in the notification for this purpose. ( 5 ) THE non-compliance of this essential condition itself is sufficient to sustain the dismissal of the appellants claim on merits and consequently the writ petition by the High court. ( 6 ) THE appeal is dismissed accordingly. ( 7 ) NO costs.