9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 for the grant of exemption under this notification shall not be taken into ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibility 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 value of the branded goods while reckoning the first clearance for specified goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 and not retrospective. We observe that proviso to para 3 of Notification No. 175/86 which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
