Substituted exemption notification construed retrospectively, keeping the unit within the notified area and preserving area-based relief.

A substituted entry in the area-based exemption notification was treated as part of the original exemption scheme, and the amended Hadbast and Khasra references were read as relating back to the initial notification. Applying the settled principle on substitution, the clarification was construed as operating from inception rather than creating only a prospective benefit. On that basis, the unit fell within the notified area and remained eligible for exemption. The impugned order granting the exemption was sustained, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to the area-based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 read with Notification No. 34/2005-CE dated 30.09.2005 for the unit located at Hadbast No. 110 and Khasra No. 147.

Analysis: The substituted notification replaced the earlier Hadbast and Khasra numbers and, on the settled principle governing substitution, the amended entry is to be read as forming part of the original notification. The substitution was treated as clarificatory and as relating back to the original exemption scheme, so the respondent's unit fell within the notified area for the purpose of the exemption.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the exemption, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order granting the exemption was sustained and the Revenue appeal did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment by way of substitution, where it clarifies or replaces the original notified entry, is construed as operating from the inception of the original notification and not as creating a merely prospective benefit.

---