Judgment grants relief by extending exemption benefits despite changing premises.

The judgment annuls the Asstt. Collector's orders and grants relief to M/s. N.R. Auto Products by extending the benefit of Para 4(b) and Notification No. 175/86. The court clarifies that the exemption is tied to the manufacturer, not the factory premises, allowing the appellants to avail of the benefit despite changing premises. The decision emphasizes fulfilling all conditions for entitlement to exemption benefits, directing compliance with relevant conditions during the disputed period for the appellants to benefit from the exemption provisions.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 175/86 for changed premises.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals filed by M/s. N.R. Auto Products concerning the denial of the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86 due to a change in factory premises. The issue at hand is whether the Asstt. Collector was justified in denying the benefit of the exemption Notification for the changed premises. The Asstt. Collector had denied the benefit based on the premise that the exemption was not available for the new premises. The key consideration was the interpretation of Para 4(b) of the impugned order, which the Asstt. Collector had relied upon to deny the benefit. The judgment notes that the appellants changed their factory premises on 21-2-1992, falling within the financial year 1991-92. It is highlighted that the Asstt. Collector's interpretation of Para 4(b) was flawed as it incorrectly linked the benefit to the same factory instead of the same manufacturer who had availed of the exemption in the preceding financial year. The judgment clarifies that Para 4(b) emphasizes the manufacturer rather than the factory, and as the same manufacturer had availed of the benefit in the previous year, the condition of Para 4(b) was satisfied. Therefore, the benefit under this provision should be extended to the appellants for the financial year in question, subject to fulfilling all other relevant conditions of the Notification. The judgment emphasizes that while the appellants may be entitled to the benefit of Para 4(b), eligibility for the entire Notification No. 175/86 would depend on meeting all other conditions stipulated therein.

In conclusion, the judgment annuls the orders of the Asstt. Collector in both cases and directs that the benefit of Para 4(b) and Notification No. 175/86 be extended to the appellants if all other relevant conditions of the Notification are met during the disputed period. The appeals are disposed of accordingly, granting relief to the appellants based on the correct interpretation of the exemption provisions and emphasizing the importance of fulfilling all conditions for entitlement to the exemption benefits.

---