Plain terms of exemption entries control classification; unmet conditions do not move goods to another serial entry.

An exemption entry must be applied according to its plain terms, and goods falling within Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 275/82-C.E. could not be shifted to Serial No. 3 merely because the condition attached to Serial No. 2 was not met. The proviso was only a condition for availing that exemption, not a basis for reclassification. A later amendment by Notification No. 8/84 was treated as a policy change, not a clarificatory measure, and therefore did not operate retrospectively. The concessional rate under the amended or alternative entry was unavailable for the disputed period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether goods falling under Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 275/82-C.E. could be shifted to Serial No. 3 when the condition attached to Serial No. 2 was not satisfied; (ii) whether the subsequent amendment by Notification No. 8/84 was clarificatory and retrospective so as to extend the concessional rate to the appellants.

Issue (i): Whether goods falling under Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 275/82-C.E. could be shifted to Serial No. 3 when the condition attached to Serial No. 2 was not satisfied.

Analysis: The notification classified cellulosic spun yarn and cotton yarn into distinct categories. Serial No. 2 covered cross reel hanks, while Serial No. 3 applied only to goods other than those covered by Serial Nos. 1 and 2. The appellants' goods admittedly fell within the description in Serial No. 2, and the proviso attached to that serial was only a condition for availing the exemption under that entry. Failure to satisfy the condition did not alter the basic classification or permit resort to Serial No. 3.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to move their goods into Serial No. 3, and the claim under that entry failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent amendment by Notification No. 8/84 was clarificatory and retrospective so as to extend the concessional rate to the appellants.

Analysis: The amendment altered the description of the category in Serial No. 2 and reflected a policy change rather than a mere clarification. An amendment to an exemption notification operates from its own date unless the language shows a clear clarificatory intent. The earlier and later notifications were not treated as expressing the same position in different words, and the later amendment could not be read back into the earlier notification.

Conclusion: Notification No. 8/84 was not clarificatory or retrospective, and it did not assist the appellants for the disputed period.

Final Conclusion: The exemption was confined to the goods and conditions expressly covered by the relevant entry, and the appellants could not claim the benefit of the lower concessional rate under the amended or alternative classification.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption entry must be applied according to its plain terms, and a condition attached to one serial entry cannot be used to reclassify goods into another serial entry; a later amendment will not be treated as clarificatory unless its language clearly shows that intent.

---