Exemption continuity in notification schemes prevented denial of composite mill status during the intervening period.

A temporary change in exemption wording did not alter the assessee's status for the intervening year where the surrounding notification scheme showed a consistent policy. The Tribunal noted that earlier and later notifications treated composite mill eligibility consistently, and the interim omission of the spinning-of-yarn requirement was not enough to deny the benefit for 2000-01. On that basis, the assessee was not regarded as a composite mill during the disputed period, and the credit demand was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee, treated as a non-composite mill before and after the intervening period, could be regarded as a composite mill during 2000-01 so as to restrict credit entitlement.

Analysis: The applicable notification regime changed during the relevant period. Under the earlier notification, spinning of yarn was a requirement for a composite mill, while the intervening notification omitted that requirement, and the earlier definition was later restored. The Tribunal applied the principle that where the Government's consistent exemption policy is evident from the surrounding notification structure, the exemption position should not be treated as having been effectively withdrawn for the intervening period merely because of the temporary change in wording. On that basis, the assessee's status was held not to be altered for the disputed year.

Conclusion: The assessee was not to be treated as a composite mill during the intervening period 2000-01, and the credit demand was not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later and earlier exemption regime show a consistent policy and an intervening notification only temporarily alters the definitional wording, the assessee's exemption status cannot be denied for the intervening period if the overall scheme supports continuity of benefit.

---