Exemption under Notification No. 175/86 depends on the same manufacturer's prior benefit, not identical factory premises.

Para 4(b) of Notification No. 175/86 was construed to focus on whether the same manufacturer had availed the exemption in the preceding financial year, rather than on continuity of the identical factory premises. On that reading, shifting the factory location did not by itself defeat eligibility where the manufacturer had already enjoyed the benefit in the earlier year. The denial of exemption on that ground was therefore unsustainable, although entitlement to the notification remained subject to satisfaction of the other applicable conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether benefit of Para 4(b) of Notification No. 175/86 could be denied merely because the assessee shifted its factory premises, when the same manufacturer had availed the exemption in the preceding financial year.

Analysis: Para 4(b) was read as referring to "a factory" in the context of the manufacturer's prior availment of the exemption, and not as restricting the benefit to the identical physical premises. The emphasis was held to be on the same manufacturer having enjoyed the notification in the preceding year. Since the assessee had already been granted the exemption for the earlier financial year, the condition in Para 4(b) was satisfied. The changed premises could not, by itself, defeat the benefit, though entitlement to the notification as a whole would still depend on fulfilment of all other relevant conditions.

Conclusion: The denial of benefit was unsustainable and the assessee was held entitled to the benefit of Para 4(b) and the notification, subject to satisfaction of the remaining conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Para 4(b) of the exemption notification, the relevant consideration is the same manufacturer's prior enjoyment of the benefit, not continuity of the identical factory premises.

---