Independent exemption clauses limited the amended restriction to units earlier covered by clause (a), preserving clause (b) relief.

An exemption notification for small-scale industrial units treated clauses (a) and (b) of the first proviso as separate, independent routes to relief. The amended second proviso introduced by Notification No. 55/92-C.E. barred only unregistered units that had earlier availed exemption under clause (a), so a unit that had consistently relied only on clause (b) was not excluded. Later Notification No. 67/92-C.E. and the Ministry's clarificatory letter were read as consistent with that limited restriction. The operative effect was that such units remained entitled to exemption for the relevant period.

---

---

Issues: Whether an unregistered small-scale industrial unit, which had previously availed exemption only under clause (b) of the first proviso to paragraph 4 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., could claim exemption for the period 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992 after the amendments made by Notifications No. 55/92-C.E. and 67/92-C.E.

Analysis: Notification No. 175/86-C.E. granted exemption to specified goods, subject to registration, but the first proviso carved out exceptions in clauses (a) and (b). The amended second proviso introduced by Notification No. 55/92-C.E. barred only those unregistered units that had availed exemption in pursuance of clause (a) in any preceding financial year from taking benefit under clause (b). The respondents were found, on the unchallenged factual record, to have consistently availed exemption only under clause (b) in earlier years and never under clause (a). On that basis, the second proviso did not apply to them. The later Notification No. 67/92-C.E. and the Ministry's clarificatory letter were also treated as supporting the view that the restriction introduced by Notification No. 55/92-C.E. was not intended to operate against such units during the relevant period.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to exemption under clause (b) of the first proviso to paragraph 4 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992, and the departmental appeals failed.

Final Conclusion: The decision confirms that clauses (a) and (b) of the first proviso operate independently, and the amended restriction applied only to units that had earlier taken benefit under clause (a), not to units that had consistently relied on clause (b).

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification uses disjunctive language in separate proviso clauses, a subsequent amending proviso barring one category does not affect a unit that fell only within the other independent category.

---