Exemption under Notification 175/86-C.E. remained available where clause (a) benefit had not been taken in a prior year.

Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. depended on the first proviso to para 4 and the amendment made by Notification No. 55/92. The assessee had not availed exemption under clause (a) of the first proviso and had claimed exemption only under clause (b); the second proviso inserted by Notification No. 55/92 denied clause (b) only where clause (a) exemption had been availed in a preceding financial year. As that factual position stood recorded in the appellate order and remained unrebutted, the assessee continued to qualify for the exemption for the relevant period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for the clearances made during 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992, in view of the first proviso to para 4 and the amendment introduced by Notification No. 55/92.

Analysis: The rectification application showed that the assessee's unit had not availed exemption under clause (a) of the first proviso to para 4, but had only been claiming exemption under clause (b). The second proviso to para 4, inserted by Notification No. 55/92, denied the benefit of clause (b) only where the manufacturer had availed exemption under clause (a) in a preceding financial year. That factual position was recorded in the appellate order and was not rebutted by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The assessee remained eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for the relevant period, and the Revenue's appeal was not sustainable.

---