( 1 ) ). In this petition, a short but an interesting question arises for our consideration. It is to the effect as to whether an exemption notification issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the rules for short) in connection with synthetic organic dyes s. 0. dyes for short) manufactured by the petitioner has got stultified on account of operation of the provisions of Rule 56a of the Rules. In order to appreciate this controversy, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts.

( 2 ) ). The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act as a Private Limited Company. It is engaged in the manufacture of S. 0. Dyes falling under T. I. 14d of the First Schedule to the Act as was applicable at the relevant time. The petitioner was utilising duty paid dye-intel mediates falling under T. I. 68 of the Schedule as the basic raw material of both the kinds, viz. , impoited as well as indigenous in the manufacture of the aforesaid dyes. We are told that now the petitioner has discontinued manufacturing of the aforesaid items. The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 8 (1) of the Rules had issued notification dated 20-4-1981 which was subsequently amended from time to time granting certain exemptions. That notification is at Annexure d to the petition. It is captioned exemption notification relating to set off of Countervailing duty. It deals with dyes made from countervailing customs duty paid intermediates and states that they are exempted from excise duty equivalent to the duty already paid. The notification then proceeds to recite that in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8 (1) of the Rules, the Central Government hereby exempts synthetic organic dyestuffs manufactured wholly or partly out of the imported intermediates, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is equivalent to the amount of the countervailing customs duty paid on such imported intermediates. This notification underwent an amendment on 16- 6-1980 by amendment notification No. 109/80-CE. By the said amendment, a proviso was inserted in the said exemption notification which read as under: "provided that in relation to the exemption under this notification, the procedure set out in Rule 56a of the aforesaid rules is followed. " the controversy in the present proceedings centres round the interpretation of the words procedure set out in Rule 56a as employed in the said proviso. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to Rule 56a. The said Rule deals with special procedure for movement of duty paid materials or component parts for use in the manufacture of finished excisable goods. Sub-rule (1) of the said Rule as applicable at the relevant time provided as under:"notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the excisable goods in respect of which the procedure laid down in sub-rule (2) shall apply "so far as sub-rule (2) of Rule 56a is concerned, along with relevant two provisos, the same read as under :56a (2) The Collector may, on application made in this behalf and subject to the conditions mentioned in sub-rule (3) and such other conditions as may from time to time be prescribed by the Central Government, permit a manufacturer of any excisable goods specified under sub-rule (1) to receive material or component parts or finished product (like asbestos cement;, on which the duty of excise or the additional duty under (Sec. 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (5 of 1975)) (hereinafter referred to as the countervailing duty) has been paid, in his factory for the manufacture of these goods or for the more convenient distribution of finished product and allow a credit of the duty already paid on such material or component parts of finished product, as the case may be : provided that no credit of duty shall be allowed in respect of any material or component parts used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods - (i) i