Exemption notification clearances need not be clubbed chronologically when governing precedent supports the assessee's interpretation.

The Tribunal held that, for availing Notification No. 175/86-C.E., clearances of different products could not be compulsorily reckoned in chronological order so as to carry an unutilised exemption limit from one product to another. It found that the contrary view had ceased to be governing law, and that the line of authority following EL.P.EM. Industries remained applicable. On that basis, the Revenue's interpretation was rejected, the assessee's claim to the notification benefit was accepted, and the adverse order was set aside with consequential relief where admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., the clearances of different products manufactured by the assessee had to be reckoned in chronological order so that the unutilized exemption limit exhausted by one product could not be carried over to another product.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the question was already settled by its later decision history. It held that the earlier view supporting chronological clubbing of clearances was no longer the governing law, and that the line of authority following the EL.P.EM. Industries decision had been upheld. On that basis, the interpretation adopted by the Revenue could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification as claimed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the adverse order was set aside, with consequential relief where admissible.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing precedent supports the assessee's interpretation of an exemption notification, the benefit cannot be denied by applying an overruled or no longer good-law view on chronological reckoning of clearances.

---