Exemption under Notification 175/86 remained available where eligibility rested on clause (b), despite later amendments.

Notification No. 55/92 substituted the second proviso to paragraph 4 of Notification No. 175/86 and withdrew the relaxation for manufacturers who had earlier claimed the exemption under clause (a) of the first proviso. On the stated construction, that amendment did not affect manufacturers whose eligibility rested on clause (b), including registration as a small scale industry or the corresponding earlier position. Notification No. 67/92 was likewise treated as not disqualifying such an assessee for the period 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. The commentary therefore concludes that the exemption remained available on those facts and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendments made by Notification Nos. 55/92 and 67/92 disqualified the assessee from availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 for the period 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992.

Analysis: Notification No. 55/92 substituted the second proviso to paragraph 4 of Notification No. 175/86 so as to withdraw the relaxation for a manufacturer who had availed the exemption in terms of clause (a) of the first proviso in any of the preceding financial years. The assessee's case, however, was that its eligibility had always been founded on clause (b) of the proviso and not on clause (a). On that construction, the amendment did not take away the benefit from a manufacturer who had been availing the notification by reason of registration as a small scale industry or the corresponding earlier position under clause (b). The departmental reliance on other Tribunal decisions was distinguished on facts, while a prior decision on similar facts supported the assessee's stand.

Conclusion: The amendments did not disqualify the assessee from the exemption for the disputed period. The appeal failed.

---