https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120721 An exemption under Notification No. 56/2002 turned on whether Khasra No. 394 actually covered only SIDCO Industrial Complex, Baribrahmna, or also included EPIP, Kartholi, Baribrahmna. The later Notification No. 79/2003, which substituted the earlier entry, was treated as supporting a clarificatory reading, but the record did not conclusively establish the factual extent of the khasra. The exemption could not be denied merely on the wording of the notification entry, and the original adjudicating authority had to verify the location covered by Khasra No. 394 before granting or refusing the benefit. en-us Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:31:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120721 An exemption under Notification No. 56/2002 turned on whether Khasra No. 394 actually covered only SIDCO Industrial Complex, Baribrahmna, or also included EPIP, Kartholi, Baribrahmna. The later Notification No. 79/2003, which substituted the earlier entry, was treated as supporting a clarificatory reading, but the record did not conclusively establish the factual extent of the khasra. The exemption could not be denied merely on the wording of the notification entry, and the original adjudicating authority had to verify the location covered by Khasra No. 394 before granting or refusing the benefit. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120721