Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J. - The fate of this appeal, by special leave, turns on the construction of a notification issued by the Government of India dated April 20, 1960 under R. 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 whereby a qualified exemption was accorded to certain types of aluminium manufactures in the matter of excise duty. The ultimate statutory revision to the Central Government having been decided against the appellant company, it has challenged the correctness of the view based on which the revision petition was dismissed.

2. The facts, fortunately, are few and beyond controversy although the length of the litigation has been considerable and beyond necessity, this being the second time the appellant has had to come to this Court aggrieved by the revisory authority s refusal to grant refund of over-levied excise duty, as claimed by it. Had there been disputes on facts, we would have hesitated to reassess the findings but as the record stands, the sole question is one of construction.

3. If we may anticipate our ultimate conclusion even at the opening stage, this appeal deserves to be allowed as a matter of law, but what is more significant for society are three unhappy fe