9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. None, for the Respondents. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - These two appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 24-2-1994 and 28-2-1994 involving the issue regarding availment of benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as amended by Notification No. 55/92 and No. 67/92. Both the Appeals are disposed of by one common order. 2. The Ld. SDR submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and it could be concluded that they were eligible to avail of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 on strength of this, irrespective of value of clearance. The ld. SDRs submitted that the value of clearances in the preceding financial year had exceeded Rs. 7.5 lakhs in respect of both the respondents and they were not eligible for the benefit of the Notification during the period 1-4-1992 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they had never availed of the exemption in pursuance to clause (a) to first proviso of Para 4 of Notification No. 175/86. 4.2 We have considered the submissions of the Revenue and perused the records and Cross Objection filed by M/s. Khanna Petrochem Industries. The Notification No. 55/92 which substituted the second proviso in Para 4 of the Notification No. 175/86 reads as under : "P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 was not available to the units during the period from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992 by virtue of amendment made by Notification No. 55/92. The benefit of clause (b) was restored by Notification No. 67/92, dated 22-5-1992 only with effect from 22-5-1992 and not for the period prior to that date. In view of the specific mention in the notification, there is no reason to give retrospective effect to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
