https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165626 The second proviso to Notification No. 14/76 was confined to manufacturers expressly covered by the proviso to Rule 173RA(2), namely those applying for a licence for the first time on or after 1 January 1976 or those who had held a licence for less than 12 months before the application month. It could not be extended to manufacturers outside that class, and therefore could not be used to deny exemption under notifications issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On the stated analysis, the denial of exemption was unsustainable because the proviso was not attracted to the appellants. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Aug 2014 12:19:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165626 The second proviso to Notification No. 14/76 was confined to manufacturers expressly covered by the proviso to Rule 173RA(2), namely those applying for a licence for the first time on or after 1 January 1976 or those who had held a licence for less than 12 months before the application month. It could not be extended to manufacturers outside that class, and therefore could not be used to deny exemption under notifications issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On the stated analysis, the denial of exemption was unsustainable because the proviso was not attracted to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165626