https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93950 Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. depended on the first proviso to para 4 and the amendment made by Notification No. 55/92. The assessee had not availed exemption under clause (a) of the first proviso and had claimed exemption only under clause (b); the second proviso inserted by Notification No. 55/92 denied clause (b) only where clause (a) exemption had been availed in a preceding financial year. As that factual position stood recorded in the appellate order and remained unrebutted, the assessee continued to qualify for the exemption for the relevant period. en-us Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:39:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93950 Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. depended on the first proviso to para 4 and the amendment made by Notification No. 55/92. The assessee had not availed exemption under clause (a) of the first proviso and had claimed exemption only under clause (b); the second proviso inserted by Notification No. 55/92 denied clause (b) only where clause (a) exemption had been availed in a preceding financial year. As that factual position stood recorded in the appellate order and remained unrebutted, the assessee continued to qualify for the exemption for the relevant period. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93950