https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73246 Exemption notifications must be construed on their own language, and a value-based restriction tied to "said goods" cannot be extended to goods under a different tariff item without clear wording. Notification No. 75/79 was stated to apply to motor vehicle parts intended for original equipment use, subject to the prescribed procedure; the claim required fresh examination because it had been raised in the record but not considered below. Notification No. 89/79 was treated as available for Item 68 goods where the preceding year's clearances of those same goods did not exceed the prescribed limit, and denial based on Item 34A clearances was rejected. The demand was also noted to fail where it extended beyond the notice period and lacked suppression-based justification. en-us Tue, 10 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 May 2011 15:41:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73246 Exemption notifications must be construed on their own language, and a value-based restriction tied to "said goods" cannot be extended to goods under a different tariff item without clear wording. Notification No. 75/79 was stated to apply to motor vehicle parts intended for original equipment use, subject to the prescribed procedure; the claim required fresh examination because it had been raised in the record but not considered below. Notification No. 89/79 was treated as available for Item 68 goods where the preceding year's clearances of those same goods did not exceed the prescribed limit, and denial based on Item 34A clearances was rejected. The demand was also noted to fail where it extended beyond the notice period and lacked suppression-based justification. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73246