https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78142 A literal reading of the amended proviso to Notification No. 175/86-C.E., as introduced by Notification No. 174/89-C.E., would have required DGTD-registered manufacturers to have already availed the exemption in 1986-87, even though they were not eligible before the amendment. The Court treated that construction as impossible to apply, inconsistent with the purpose of the amendment, and likely to create an irrational distinction between similarly placed units. To preserve the validity and effect of the notification, the word "and" in the proviso was read down as "or", so the cumulative condition was not enforced and the exemption was available on the disjunctive reading. en-us Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 May 2011 14:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78142 A literal reading of the amended proviso to Notification No. 175/86-C.E., as introduced by Notification No. 174/89-C.E., would have required DGTD-registered manufacturers to have already availed the exemption in 1986-87, even though they were not eligible before the amendment. The Court treated that construction as impossible to apply, inconsistent with the purpose of the amendment, and likely to create an irrational distinction between similarly placed units. To preserve the validity and effect of the notification, the word "and" in the proviso was read down as "or", so the cumulative condition was not enforced and the exemption was available on the disjunctive reading. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78142