9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 for the grant of exemption unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 value of the branded goods while reckon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence 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 and not retrospective. We observe that prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion cannot be given effect to when it refers to the clearances made in a previous financial year calculated in particular manner when the legislature has intended to give the benefit by issuing a amending Notification No. 174/89, dated 1-9-1989 for the clearances to be made on and after this date. The queston of retrospective application in this context does not arise. In the present case, the clearances for eligibility purpose in the previous financial year for the benefit to be given after 1-9-1989 will have to be based on the total clearances made less the clearances of the branded goods cleared on payment of duty. There is no other interpretation possible. view of this, we hold that the appeals have to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
