TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (9) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amended provisions would not lie thereto. Further reliance has also been placed on the order of the Karnataka High Court dt. 5-3-1992 in W.A. No. 712 of 1991 in the case of M.S.P. Spices (P.) Ltd., in which case the Karnataka High Court stated as below : " The appeal in this case was filed on 1-10-1986, so that the amendment to clause (c) could have no application to the present case. Consequently, there has been a merger of the assessment order with the appellate order, which is covered by a Full Bench Judgment aforementioned and not saved by the said clause (c). " The Full Bench judgment as referred to above is in the case of International Computers Indian Mfg. Ltd. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the above-mentioned comment of the Karnataka High Court should be considered as a guiding factor for deciding the present issue. It has furthermore been pointed out that on a similar issue in the case of Met Chem Canada Inc. for asst. year 1984-85, the Bangalore Bench of ITAT had, by following the above-mentioned judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M.S.P. Spices (P.) Ltd decided the issue in favour of that assessee in its order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nary order passed by the CIT himself on 24-3-1988, i.e., before the amendment. The Bombay High Court has held in the case of CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji [1995] 127 CTR (Bom.) 101 by following the earlier observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd [1992] 198 ITR 297, as follows : " A case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what may come to follow from some observations which find place therein. " In all the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, there was no scope for the High Courts concerned to examine the matter from the stand point of what should have been the case had the revisionary order itself had been passed after the amendment. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the 2 decisions of the Bombay High Court and the one of the Karnataka High Court as referred to above might have pronounced good laws in cases only where the revisionary order itself had been passed before the amendment. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, they are completely distinguishable from those case-laws on the above ground. As regards the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or merchandise exported by the assessee during the relevant previous year as per sub-clause (a), a further deduction of an amount equal to 5% of the amount by which the export turnover of such goods or merchandise during the previous year exceeds the export turnover of such goods or merchandise during the immediately preceding year, will also have to be allowed. The assessee exported 4 different types of goods or merchandise during the relevant year, the details of which are being given as below : ------------------------------------------------------------------ Category of Total export Total export Incremental goods/ turnover dur- turnover dur- export merchandise ing preceding ing the P.Y. turnover P. Y. 1981-82 1982-83  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to be determined as a whole by taking into consideration the total export during this year and comparing the same with the total export for the immediately preceding year. This means that the amount of decrease in the export turnover in respect of watches will have to be deducted from the aggregate of the gross increment for the other 3 items. The learned counsel for the assessee has firstly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1991] 83 STC 234 to argue that the Supreme Court has held therein that a liberal and strict construction of an exemption provision is required to be invoked at different stages of interpreting it. When the question is whether a subject falls in the notification or in the exemption clause, then, it being in the nature of exception is to be construed strictly and against the subject. But once ambiguity or doubt about the applicability is lifted and the subject falls in the notification, then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal construction. It is thus argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that once it is found that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat export turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC must be computed as a single over all quantum and individual classification of goods is not necessary. The ITAT, Madras also held in the case of N.B. Abdul Gafoor v. ITO [1989] 29 ITD 227 that while the assessee had exported mosaic tiles in the preceding assessment year and tendu leaves during the current assessment year, registering an overall increase in the total export turnover over last year's total export turnover, the assessee-firm was entitled to additional deduction of 5% on increased export turnover even though the same goods had not been exported in the current year as in the preceding year. The thrust of this decision is that the total export turnover during the current year and the same in the preceding year without examining the different components comprising the same, are the only factors to be looked into. The learned counsel for the assessee has sought to raise another point in this connection. It is contended by him that the assessee is at liberty to claim rebate u/s 80HHC in respect of even a part of the exported items. It is argued that if the 3 items, viz., machine tools, tractors and....