Exemption under Notification 71/78-C.E. required compliance with both clause (a)(ii) and clause (aa) for eligibility.

Exemption under Notification No. 71/78-C.E. depended on compliance with the conditions applicable to the relevant year of clearance. The notification was read as requiring clause (a)(ii) and clause (aa) to be satisfied together, rather than as alternative routes to relief. Where the manufacturer met clause (a)(ii) but failed to satisfy clause (aa), the exemption was unavailable for that year and the revision application failed. The operative point is that eligibility under the notification turned on fulfilment of all applicable conditions in combination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 71/78-C.E. dated 01.03.1978 for the relevant financial year when the conditions in clause (a)(ii) and clause (aa) had to be read together.

Analysis: The notification was construed as requiring compliance with the applicable conditions for the relevant year of clearance. Clause (a)(ii) applied to clearances subsequent to the financial year 1978-79, and clause (aa) also governed eligibility in the facts of the case. The exemption was available only if the manufacturer satisfied both sets of conditions. Since the petitioners did not satisfy the requirement under clause (aa), they could not claim the benefit of the notification, even if clause (a)(ii) was otherwise met.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the exemption under the notification and the revision application failed.

---