https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88214 Notification No. 67/92-C.E. was construed as keeping the substituted proviso to paragraph 4 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. in abeyance, not as reviving the earlier second proviso. The exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was treated as intended for small-scale industrial units, so registration with the Directorate General of Technical Development alone did not satisfy the main condition. Clause (a) of the first proviso to paragraph 4 was read as an independent clearance-based exception, and the word "clearances" was taken to mean clearances of specified goods, entitling a unit to the exemption if the prescribed limit was met. en-us Tue, 08 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:36:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88214 Notification No. 67/92-C.E. was construed as keeping the substituted proviso to paragraph 4 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. in abeyance, not as reviving the earlier second proviso. The exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was treated as intended for small-scale industrial units, so registration with the Directorate General of Technical Development alone did not satisfy the main condition. Clause (a) of the first proviso to paragraph 4 was read as an independent clearance-based exception, and the word "clearances" was taken to mean clearances of specified goods, entitling a unit to the exemption if the prescribed limit was met. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88214