Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Notification No. 55/92-C.E. dated 31-3-1992 applied to deny exemption for the period 4-4-1992 to 15-4-1992, or whether the subsequent Notification No. 67/92-C.E. and departmental clarification restored the earlier position for the relevant period.
Analysis: The order proceeded on the basis that Notification No. 55/92-C.E. came into force from 1-4-1992, and the contention that it became effective only when made available for sale was rejected. At the same time, the subsequent amending Notification No. 67/92-C.E. deferred the amended second proviso to paragraph 4, and the Board's clarification published through trade notices stated that the position prevailing before Notification No. 55/92-C.E. stood restored for unregistered units claiming exemption under the first proviso to paragraph 4 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The combined effect of the amendment and clarification showed that the intended position for the relevant period was not to apply the restrictive amendment.
Conclusion: The demand based on Notification No. 55/92-C.E. for the relevant period was held unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a later amending notification and departmental clarification defer the operation of a restrictive exemption amendment, the amendment cannot be applied to deny exemption for the covered period notwithstanding its initial stated commencement date.