https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91392 The amendment to Notification No. 175/86 by Notification No. 55/92, read with Notification No. 67/92, was construed as operating only where the assessee had previously availed the benefit under clause (a) of the proviso. On that interpretation, an assessee whose earlier exemption arose under clause (b) was not disentitled for the period 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. The Tribunal also noted that the departmental appeal did not disturb the concurrent factual finding that the exemption continued, and that an identical issue had already been decided on similar facts in the same manner. en-us Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:45:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91392 The amendment to Notification No. 175/86 by Notification No. 55/92, read with Notification No. 67/92, was construed as operating only where the assessee had previously availed the benefit under clause (a) of the proviso. On that interpretation, an assessee whose earlier exemption arose under clause (b) was not disentitled for the period 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. The Tribunal also noted that the departmental appeal did not disturb the concurrent factual finding that the exemption continued, and that an identical issue had already been decided on similar facts in the same manner. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91392