Aggregate exemption limit includes separately exempted clearances; later exclusion amendment held prospective only.

An exemption notification fixing an aggregate first-clearance limit of Rs. 5 lakh was construed to include clearances already exempted under a separate notification for rapidogens, because the earlier notification expressly listed certain exclusions and did not exclude these clearances. The later amendment inserting an exclusion for goods exempted under any other notification was treated as enlarging the scope of the exemption, not as a clarificatory or retrospective change. On that basis, rapidogen clearances remained includible in the value computation under the earlier notification, and the revised exclusion applied only prospectively.

---

---

Issues: Whether clearances of rapidogens exempted under Notification No. 180/61-CE were to be included while computing the Rs. 5 lakh value limit under Notification No. 71/78-CE, and whether the later Notification No. 141/79-CE operated retrospectively to exclude such clearances.

Analysis: Notification No. 71/78-CE granted a limited exemption for first clearances up to an aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs and expressly specified certain exclusions in its explanatory provisions. Notification No. 180/61-CE granted a separate exemption for rapidogens manufactured from duty-paid dyes. The deliberate inclusion of some exclusions and omission of others in Notification No. 71/78-CE indicated that clearances exempted under Notification No. 180/61-CE were not intended to be left out of the computation of the value limit. The later Notification No. 141/79-CE, which inserted an explanation excluding clearances exempted by any other notification, enlarged the scope of the earlier exemption and could not be treated as merely clarificatory or retrospective.

Conclusion: The clearances exempted under Notification No. 180/61-CE were includible in the Rs. 5 lakh limit under Notification No. 71/78-CE, and the subsequent amendment did not retrospectively alter that position; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the demand on the basis that the two exemption notifications did not permit exclusion of the rapidogen clearances from the computation under Notification No. 71/78-CE.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification fixes an aggregate clearance limit and expressly provides specific exclusions, other exempted clearances not so excluded are included in the limit, and a later amendment enlarging the exemption operates prospectively unless expressly made retrospective.

---