Exemption notification amendment can operate mid-year, and interim abeyance does not undo its effect for the disputed period.

An exemption notification governing clearances for a financial year could still be amended mid-year to limit, vary or withdraw the benefit for part of that year. The later notification keeping the amendment in abeyance did not wipe out the amendment's effect during the intervening period. The Tribunal could not declare the notification ultra vires on grounds of arbitrariness, and the cited Supreme Court ruling was distinguishable on its facts and law. The assessee was therefore not entitled to the exemption for the disputed period, and the challenge to the amendment failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to the exemption notification operated from 1-4-1992 so as to deny the benefit of the earlier notification for part of the financial year, and whether the Tribunal could treat the amendment as invalid on the ground of arbitrariness.

Analysis: The exemption was granted under a notification governing clearances in a financial year, but that by itself did not prevent the issuing authority from amending the notification so as to limit, vary, or withdraw the benefit for part of the financial year. The subsequent notification keeping the amendment in abeyance did not erase the effect of the amendment for the interregnum. The reliance on the cited Supreme Court decision was held misplaced because the factual and legal basis was different, and the Tribunal had no power to declare the notification ultra vires.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption for the disputed period, and the challenge to the amendment failed.

---