Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Strict Construction of Tax Exemptions: An exception or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly, and it is not open to the Court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the Industrial Policy and exemption Notifications (!) (!) (!) .
• Mandatory Nature of Conditions: The conditions prescribed by the authorities for the grant of exemption are mandatory for availing the same; substantial compliance suffices only for directory rules, not mandatory ones (!) (!) .
• Requirement of Separate Prior Permission: A separate prior permission from the State Government (Industries Department) before 31.8.2000 is an important condition precedent for a unit to be deemed a "new industrial unit" eligible for tax exemption, distinct from a temporary Registration Certificate (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Rejection of Temporary Registration as Prior Permission: It is wholly misconceived to treat the temporary Registration Certificate issued by the Industries Department as the "prior permission" required under the amended definition of a new industrial unit (!) (!) .
• Consequences of Non-Compliance: Failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of obtaining prior permission disentitles the respondent from the grant of exemption and results in the cancellation of the concession made in their favor (!) (!) .
• High Court Jurisdiction Limits: The High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct the grant of exemption in favor of a respondent while overlooking statutory conditions prescribed for such grant, especially in the absence of a challenge to the validity of those conditions (!) (!) .
• Specific Statutory Requirements for Pipeline Industries: For pipeline industries to be treated as new industrial units for exemption purposes under the relevant Notifications, three conditions must be met: (i) obtaining a registration certificate, (ii) obtaining prior permission from the State Government before 31.8.2000, and (iii) commencing production within 5 years of obtaining that prior permission (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Outcome of the Case: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and held that the application for exemption by the respondent (Ambay Cements) was rightly rejected due to non-fulfillment of the statutory obligation to obtain prior permission (!) (!) .