Exemption notification amendment did not withdraw benefit where prior relief arose under clause (b) of the proviso.

The amendment to Notification No. 175/86 by Notification No. 55/92, read with Notification No. 67/92, was construed as operating only where the assessee had previously availed the benefit under clause (a) of the proviso. On that interpretation, an assessee whose earlier exemption arose under clause (b) was not disentitled for the period 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. The Tribunal also noted that the departmental appeal did not disturb the concurrent factual finding that the exemption continued, and that an identical issue had already been decided on similar facts in the same manner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to Notification No. 175/86 by Notification No. 55/92, read with Notification No. 67/92, disentitled the assessee to the exemption for the period 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992.

Analysis: The Tribunal read Notification No. 55/92 as applicable only where the assessee had earlier enjoyed the benefit under clause (a) of the proviso. On that reading, the amendment did not withdraw the exemption from an assessee whose earlier benefit arose under clause (b). The departmental appeal did not dislodge the concurrent factual finding that the exemption continued, and the Tribunal noted that an identical issue had already been decided on similar facts in the same manner.

Conclusion: The amendment did not take away the assessee's entitlement to the exemption for the disputed period.

---