- (1.) These two appeals involve the same question with regard to interpretation of the Notification 12 of 1989 and as such are being heard together and disposed of by the common judgment. In the two appeals two different periods are involved. The question for consideration is whether Item No. 2 of the Entry in question relates to all goods other than mentioned in Item No. 1 or it relates to goods other than hardened technical oil (inedible grade). The Tribunal has taken the view that since the oil in question is edible it will not be covered by Item 2 of the Notification. The Revenue itself has come up with a Notification later clearly indicating therein that Item 2 would refer to all goods other than specified at serial No. 1. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said Notification is mere clarificatory whereas according to Mr. Choudhary appearing for the Revenue, until that Notification was issued the earlier Notification should be construed to mean that Item 2 would cover only those goods which are of inedible grade. Having considered the rival submissions and having applied our mind to the relevant Notification 12 of 1989 we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Entry 2 of that Notification relates to all goods other than Entry 1 and the subsequent Notification issued on 20th March, 1990 by the Revenue is merely a clarificatory one. Consequently, the impugned decision of the Tribunal is set aside. The appeals are allowed.2000-3630;