Amended incorporated definition governs exemption under textile-control notifications, excluding 4-harness drill from concessional duty.

4-harness drill was held outside the concessional duty regime because proviso (v) to Notification No. 226/77-C.E. applied only to goods answering the then-current definition of "controlled drill" under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948. The definition originally included 4-harness drill, but Notification No. CER/1/69 deleted it from 1 November 1969, and the amended definition governed the exemption because the notification referred to the class as defined "from time to time". The argument that a separate stamping-control concept preserved the goods was rejected, as was reliance on incorporation to freeze the earlier definition. The exemption claim therefore failed on the proper construction of the linked textile-control notifications.

---

---

Issues: Whether 4-harness drill cleared during the relevant period was entitled to the concessional duty under proviso (v) to Notification No. 226/77-C.E. dated 15.07.1977.

Analysis: Proviso (v) applied only to drill answering the description of "controlled drill" as defined from time to time by the Textile Commissioner under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, and the Court read that expression in the context of the price-control framework created by Clause 22 of the Order and the connected notifications. Notification No. CER/1/68 originally included 4-harness drill within the definition of controlled drill, but Notification No. CER/1/69 amended that definition by deleting 4-harness drill with effect from 01.11.1969. The later marking notification could not be read as preserving the deleted variety independently of the price-control definition, and the plea of a separate stamping-control concept was rejected as unnecessary and anomalous. The Court also held that the principle of legislation by incorporation did not save the assessee because the relevant notifications were in pari materia and supplemental to each other, and the expression "from time to time" required the amended definition to be applied.

Conclusion: 4-harness drill was not covered by proviso (v), and the assessee was not entitled to the exemption.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the exemption claim failed on the proper construction of the textile-control notifications and the amended definition of controlled drill.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification adopts a class of goods as defined from time to time under a control order, later amendments to the incorporated definition govern the exemption unless the later scheme clearly indicates otherwise.

---