1995 (9) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned lower authorities that for the purpose of availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 their eligibility criteria should be based on the Notification No. 175/86 which stood amended by Notification No. 174/89 to the effect that the value of the branded goods cleared by the appellants should be excluded for reckoning the aggregate value of clearances as stated under proviso to para 3 of Notification No. 175/86. Para 3 as amended is reproduced below :  "Provided that for the purpose of computing the aggregate value of clearances under this paragraph, the clearances of any excisable goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vely and not retrospectively. He has not adverted to the fact that the amended eligibility criteria in terms of Notification No. 174/89 relates to the eligibility of the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 based on the clearances made in the previous financial year. As to how these clearances have to be reckoned is set out in the proviso to para 3 of Notification No. 175/86. 3. The learned Counsel addressed the history of the eligibility of the criteria under Notification No. 175/86 and pointed out that this eligibility criteria had changed both in respect of the quantum of clearances and aggregate clearances in terms of paras 1(a) and 1(b) and also para 3. He pleaded that notification was first amended to exclude the va....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. The learned DR pleaded that the essence of notification should be followed and the notification should be given only prospective effect and not retrospective effect. 5. We have given a careful thought to the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that the eligibility criterion for the purpose of benefit of Notification No. 175/86 came to be changed by issue of Notification No. 174/89, dated 1-9-1989. The appelants filed the classification list after this date claiming the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. The appellants have been denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 by the authorities for the reason that the value of the branded goods should not be excluded and that this exclusion could only be made in the future an....