9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. In her order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held the respondent was entitled to the benefit of confirming the finding of the Deputy Collector. 2. We have heard the departmental representative and Shri M.V. Ravindran, advocate representing M/s. Sun Coat Industries (application 1176/95); none of the other respondents is present or represented. We have considered the written submissions of M/s. Sheelas Engineering (application E/1172/95). 3. To proper understand the dispute, it is necessary at this point to set out the provisions of paragraph 4 of notification 175/86 as it existed on 31-3-1992 : 4. The exemption contained in this notification shall be applicable only to a factory which is an undertaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endment made on 01-04-1992 the second proviso was replaced as follows : Provided further that nothing contained in clause (b) of the first proviso shall apply in case where a manufacturer who is manufacturing specified goods in a factory has availed of the exemption in pursuance of clause (a) of the said proviso in any of the preceding financial years. 5. An analysis of these provisions indicates that any manufacturer who had availed of the benefit of the notification in pursuance of clause (a) of the first proviso to paragraph 4 during any of the preceding financial year i.e., 1986-87 and till 1991-92 would not be entitled to avail of the benefit of the notification. Therefore, such a manufacture would not be entitled to the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have noted, this alone is not sufficient to debar the assessee from availing of the notification. An assessee who had exceeded the value of clearance of Rs. 7.50 lakhs during the preceding financial year would not in any case be entitled to avail of the benefit of the exemption under clause (a). This was, in fact, the position even before the notification was amended by notification 55/92. It is to be noted that notification 55/92 did not in any manner amend clause (a) of the first proviso to paragraph 4. Hence an assessee, before the amendment brought by notification 55/92 could ever avail of the benefit of notification, if it was entitled to do so in terms of clause (b) of the first proviso under paragraph 4 prior to amendment brought abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
