JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.In these three petitions, petitioners were denied benefit of the Incentive Scheme i.e. Sales-tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987, on the ground that petitioners' units started commercial production after the period within which the benefit could have been made available to them. The denial is based upon interpretation of Explanation to section 2(a) read with Explanation to section 2 of the Incentive Scheme, 1987.Detailed facts of each case will not be required to be recorded in this judgment because it involves only point of law and facts are not in dispute.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners started commercial production before 31st March, 1997 and in this respect, the District Industries Centre itself has issued Permanent Registration Certificate wherein it is clearly mentioned that petitioners' unit has started commercial production before 31st March, 1997. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Sanjeev Johari submits that the Explanation makes it very clear that this benefit is available to only those units who put raw material in use and from that date, 61st day should not fail beyond 31st March, 1997. The reason is that the incentive Scheme of 1987 was operative till 31st March, 1997 and the Explanation has been given in section 2 itself to avoid confusion and make the scheme applicable uni-formally. 3. .The argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents appears to be not well founded. The definition of 'new industrial unit' has been given in section 2(a), which says that-new industrial unit means an industrial unit which commences commercial production during the operative period of the Incentive Scheme. The 'operative period' of the Incentive Scheme has been defined in section 1 of the Scheme, which says that this Scheme shall come into operation with effect from 5th March, 1987 and shall remain in force up to 31st March, 1997. Therefore, the period given by the Scheme itself, in its substantive part, cannot be reduced by putting interpretation otherwise taking help of the Explanation. Not only this, even the Explanation can not be used in the manner in which respondents wants to interpret. Therefore, the period given by the Scheme itself, in its substantive part, cannot be reduced by putting interpretation otherwise taking help of the Explanation. Not only this, even the Explanation can not be used in the manner in which respondents wants to interpret. When there is direct and positive evidence of start of commercial production by a unit available on the record then a deeming clause, giving in the Explanation can not be used to rebut the positive evidence of commencement of commercial production by the unit, for the purpose of taking benefit under the incentive Scheme of 1987. 4. It appears from the impugned order passed in these writ petitions that the respondents have not even considered important material piece of evidence i.e. the certificate issued by the District industries Centre. Not only this, there no reason has been given for recording satisfaction of holding that the commercial production of petitioners' unit commenced after 31st March, 1997. 5. Therefore, the writ petitions of the petitioners deserve to be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders of rejection for the grant of benefit under the Incentive Scheme of 1987, passed by the respondents on 15.10.1997 and 12.11.1997 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Level Screening Committee for reconsideration of the matter of petitioners with respect to grant of benefit under the Incentive Scheme of 1987.Writ Petition Allowed. *******