https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114626 The expression "allowed to be sold in India" had to be construed consistently across the two exemption notifications governing the same clearances. Since the Commissioner had treated the goods as allowed to be sold in India for denying exemption under Notification No. 125/84-C.E., the same factual basis could not be used to deny benefit under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. on a different meaning of the same phrase. On that basis, the conditions of Notification No. 8/97-C.E. were satisfied, the penalty had no foundation, and the duty liability, if any, was required to be reworked by the adjudicating authority. en-us Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 May 2012 15:17:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114626 The expression "allowed to be sold in India" had to be construed consistently across the two exemption notifications governing the same clearances. Since the Commissioner had treated the goods as allowed to be sold in India for denying exemption under Notification No. 125/84-C.E., the same factual basis could not be used to deny benefit under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. on a different meaning of the same phrase. On that basis, the conditions of Notification No. 8/97-C.E. were satisfied, the penalty had no foundation, and the duty liability, if any, was required to be reworked by the adjudicating authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114626