JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---The petitioners challenge the Notification Nos. DMN/CST/2001-02/01 and DMN/CST/2001-02/02, both dated 17-10-2001, hereinafter called as "the impugned Notifications", on the ground that the same takes away the rights of the petitioners which were otherwise assured under the statutory provisions of law contained in the Goa, Daman Diu Sales Tax Act, 1964, hereinafter called as "the said Act" read with the Notification No. DMN/ST/4-1/99/2, dated 31-12-1999, hereinafter called as "the second Notification of December". 2.Few facts relevant for the decision are that one M/s. Sharda Packaging Industries, hereinafter called as "Sharda Industries", was having its establishment at Bhimpore, Daman and registered as a dealer under the said Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. It was a partnership firm and the Registration No. 60/01/2791 of 17-9-1999 was granted to them for their business of manufacturing articles by the Director of Industries. The registration under the said Act was bearing No. DA/5806, dated 1-12-1999 and was effective from 13-10-1999 and it was for the purpose of manufacture of the items like corrugated board and boxes, kraft paper rolls, starch, glue, stitching wire, waste paper, ink, plastic twine and sutli. Similarly, the registration under the Central Sales Tax Act was bearing No. DA/CST 5264. However, Sharda Industries informed the respondents under their letter dated 18-3-2000 that they had not yet commenced production as they had decided not to carry out the manufacturing activity in relation to the products for which the registration was obtained. Thereafter, the registration was amended by Sharda Industries with effect from 20-2-2001 for inclusion of items like computer stationery, computer consumables, note books, exercise books, registers, files plain or printed, printed forms/paper, stationery, addin/telex/fax rolls, carbon black coated/sized/slitted paper sheets/rolls, copier paper/duplicating paper, stickers and labels, envelopes, paper bags plain/printed, office stationery, offset printing/screen printing, BOPP tape self adhesive tape. Consequent to amendment to the registration regarding the product to be manufactured, Sharda Industries by their letter dated 24-2-2001 informed the respondents about commencement of manufacture of the products as per the amended registration. On or about 8-3-2001, the Sharda Industries conveyed and transferred their entire running business along with their immoveable properties consisting of the factory premises in favour of the petitioner No. 1 herein. The petitioner No. 2 is the Director of the petitioner No. 1. On or about 8-3-2001, the Sharda Industries conveyed and transferred their entire running business along with their immoveable properties consisting of the factory premises in favour of the petitioner No. 1 herein. The petitioner No. 2 is the Director of the petitioner No. 1. Consequently, the petitioners informed the Sales Tax Officer about the said conveyance under letter dated 12-3-2001 and requested for registration, which was granted to them under the said Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act bearing No. DA/6497 and DA(CST)/5950 respectively with effect from 8-3-2001. On 20-2-2002, the respondent No. 3 visited the premises of the petitioners and seized various records from May, 2001 till January, 2002 and further a notice came to be issued to the petitioners on 17-5-2002 informing them that the petitioners were not eligible for exemption on account of change in the class of goods manufactured by them since such change had taken place after April, 2000 and therefore considering the guidelines issued on 17-10-2001, the petitioners were liable to pay tax. It was further informed that the petitioners being the transferee had succeeded to the business of the transferor under section 24(6) of the said Act and, therefore, were directed to file the necessary returns and to pay the tax. 3.Assailing the said notice dated 17-5-2002 along with the impugned Notifications, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, being the successors of Sharda Industries and considering the provision of section 24(6) of the said Act r/w the second Notification of December are entitled to continue to avail the benefit of exemption which Sharda Industries was availing in terms of the Entry No. 68 of the Second Schedule of the said Act, hereinafter called as "the Entry No. 68", r/w section 10 of the said Act. He further submitted that in no case the respondents were entitled to deny the benefit under the exemption notification retrospectively. The impugned Notifications seeking to deny the exemption retrospectively with effect from 1-5-2000 are therefore bad in law in as much as that the respondents have no power to withdraw the exemption notifications retrospectively. He further submitted that in no case the respondents were entitled to deny the benefit under the exemption notification retrospectively. The impugned Notifications seeking to deny the exemption retrospectively with effect from 1-5-2000 are therefore bad in law in as much as that the respondents have no power to withdraw the exemption notifications retrospectively. He also submitted that the exemption goes with the business and the business of Sharda Industries having been acquired and succeeded by the petitioners, the benefits which Sharda Industries were availing in terms of the provisions of law in force at the time when Sharda Industries were carrying on with their business, the same cannot be denied to the petitioners. He further submitted that the exemption available under Entry No. 68 refers to all the products manufactured by the industries described under the said provision and not in relation to specific or specified products of such industries. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decisions in the matters of (Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851, (Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. and another v. State of Maharashtra and others)2, reported in 1992(2) Bom.C.R. 732 , (State of Bihar and others v. Krishna Kumar Kabra and another)3, reported in 1998(108) S.T.C. 1 , (Shri Krishna Enterprises and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others)4, reported in 1990(76) S.T.C. 67 , (Indian Cement Ltd. and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others)5, reported in 1988(69) S.T.C. 305 , (Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa)6, reported in 1959(37) I.T.R. 288, (The Yemmiganur Spinning Mills Limited and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others)7, reported in 1976(37) S.T.C. 314 , (Dai-Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. Union of India)8, reported in 2000(3) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)835, (Shree Hanuman Match Works and others v. The State of Assam and others)9, reported in 1982(50) S.T.C. 295 , (J.S. Ramesh and others v. State of Karnataka and others)10, reported in 1997(106) S.T.C. 580 , (Shew Bhagwan Goenka v. Commercial Tax Officer and others)11, reported in 1973(32) S.T.C. 368 , (Sabarkantha District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. and others v. Sales Tax Officer and others)12, reported in 2001(122) S.T.C. 18 , (D. Cawasji Co. Milk Producers Union Ltd. and others v. Sales Tax Officer and others)12, reported in 2001(122) S.T.C. 18 , (D. Cawasji Co. v. The State of Mysore and others)13, reported in 1985(58) S.T.C. 1 , (Solvex Oil and Fertilisers v. State of Haryana and another)14, reported in 1994(94) S.T.C. 383 and (M/s. Punjab Traders and others v. State of Punjab and others)15, reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2300. He also contended that the seizure of the records was in violation of the provisions of law and particularly Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 4.On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that Sharda Industries had not manufactured any product for which registration was obtained during the time the Entry No. 68 was on the statute book and the product which is manufactured by the petitioners since 2001, had no registration prior to 31-12-1999 and therefore consequent to deletion of Entry No. 68, the petitioners, who are the successors of Sharda Industries, cannot claim exemption under Entry No. 68 as the same ceased to exist in the statute book from 31-12-1999. The impugned notifications are merely declatory and clarificatory in nature and considering the same, it cannot be held that they give retrospective effect to the second notification of December. The notification was already in force since 1-1-2000. In the absence of any discrimination, the provisions of Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India are not at all attracted. It is also submitted that the exemption which was available in terms of the Entry No. 68 was under section 10 and therefore it was in relation to the products manufactured in terms of registration and by the industries to which the said notification was applicable. Reliance is placed in the decisions in the matters of (Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and others)16, reported in 1997(226) I.T.R. 625, (Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City VI, Bombay v. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd., Bombay)17, reported in 1991 Mh.L.J. 213, (Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited and another v. State of Maharashtra and others)18, reported in 1996(1) Bom.C.R. 382 , (Union of India v. Aflon Engineering Corporation)19, reported in 2001(10) S.C.C. 677 , (Arvind Industries and others v. State of Gujarat and others)20, reported in 1995(99) S.T.C. 333 and M/s. Punjab Traders and others v. State of Punjab and others, reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2300. 5.Upon hearing the learned Advocates and on perusal of the records and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the following questions arise for consideration:-- (i) Whether the exemption benefits under the second notification of December were available only to those products for which the registration was obtained and the manufacturing of which had already commenced prior to 31-12-1999, and not to other products? (ii) Whether the impugned notification are retrospective in nature and that therefore they are bad in law? 6.The Entry No. 68 of the Second Schedule related to the exemption available to the Small Scale Industries established in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The relevant portion of the Entry No. 68 read thus :- "68. Any goods manufactured, processed or assembled in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu by any Small Scale Industry set up on or after the date of coming into force of this notification, which has not gone into production and has not affected any sale of the goods manufactured, processed or assembled by it on any date prior to the date of coming into force of this Notification, at the point of sale made by such Small Scale Industry for a period of fifteen years from the date of first sale of the goods manufactured, processed or assembled, effected by such Small Scale Industry on or after the date of its registration under the Goa, Daman and Diu Sales Tax Act, 1964." By the Notification dated 31-12-1999 being Notification No. DMN/ST/4-1/99/1, issued in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of section 10, the Government omitted the Entry No. 68 from the Second Schedule of the said Act with effect from the date of publication of the said Notification in the Official Gazette, hereinafter called as the "first Notification of December". 7.It is to be noted that section 10(2) of the said Act empowers the Government to add to, omit from, or otherwise amend, the entries in the Second Schedule. 7.It is to be noted that section 10(2) of the said Act empowers the Government to add to, omit from, or otherwise amend, the entries in the Second Schedule. The provision relating to incidence of tax under the said Act is to be found in section 4(1) which makes every dealer, whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the commencement of the said Act exceeded the taxable quantum, liable to pay the tax under the said Act on all sales effected after the date notified by the Government except by the dealers who may deal exclusively in one or more classes of goods specified in the Second Schedule. In other words, excepting the goods enumerated under the Second Schedule of the said Act, in case of all other goods, the dealer is liable to pay tax, of course, subject to conditions specified in section 4. 8.In terms of the Entry No. 68 of the Second Schedule, the goods manufactured, processed or assembled in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu by any Small Scale Industry which was set up on or after the date of coming into force of the said provision and which had not gone into production and had not effected any sale of goods manufactured, processed or assembled by it on any date prior to the date of coming into force of the said provision, at the point of sale made by such Small Scale Industry for a period of 15 years from the date of first sale of the goods manufactured, processed or assembled, effected by such Small Scale Industry on or after the date of its registration under the said Act, were exempted from the payment of tax under the said Act. The Entry No. 68 specifically referred to "any goods manufactured, processed or assembled" by a Small Scale Industry set up in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The entry did not relate to any specific type of industry as such but refers to all the industries which were set up during the period specified under the said entry. At the same time, the entry did not restrict to any specified product manufactured by such industry or industries. In other words, the entry related to all the products manufactured by such industries, established after coming into force of the said provision of law. At the same time, the entry did not restrict to any specified product manufactured by such industry or industries. In other words, the entry related to all the products manufactured by such industries, established after coming into force of the said provision of law. However, the entry clearly required registration of the industry under the said Act for the purpose of manufacture of the goods. The entry clearly read that "........ first sale of the goods manufactured, processed or assembled, effected by such Small Scale Industry on or after the date of its registration under the Goa, Daman and Diu Sales Tax Act, 1964". (emphasis supplied) The said entry therefore clearly disclosed that exemption granted from the payment of sale tax under the said Act to the goods manufactured by the industry set up during the period specified under the said entry was restricted to those goods which were manufactured on or after the date of registration of the industry under the said Act. Can it be, therefore, said that the registration of the industry would also relate to the registration of the goods or class of goods to be manufactured by such industry? 9.The term "registered" is defined under section 2(j) to mean registered under the said Act. The sections 11 to 14 deal with the matters pertaining to registration under the said Act. The section 11 of the said Act deals with the registration of dealers. In terms of sub-section (1) thereof, no dealer, while being liable to pay tax under section 4 or 6 or 24(6) of the said Act can carry on business as a dealer unless he applies for registration and possesses a registration certificate under the said Act. The manner and the period within which the application for registration is to be filed has been specified in sub-section (2) thereof. The manner and the period within which the application for registration is to be filed has been specified in sub-section (2) thereof. In terms of sub-section (3) of section 11, if the authority to whom the application for registration of a dealer under the said Act is filed, is satisfied that the application is in order, then he shall, in accordance with the Rules made in the said Act, register the application and grant the applicant a certificate of registration in the prescribed form and such a certificate should specific the places of business as well as the class or classes of goods for the purpose of Clause (II) of sub-section (3) of section 7 which relate to taxable turnover. The sub-section (4) of section 11 empowers the prescribed authority to amend the certificate of registration in accordance with the information either furnished to him under section 23 or received by him in any other forms. This will include power to amend the certificate pursuant to the application filed by the dealer for amendment in relation to the class or classes of goods. The sub-section (7) of section 11 provides that when any business in respect of which a certificate has been granted to a dealer has been discontinued or transferred, or a dealer has ceased to be liable to pay tax under section 4 of the said Act, the Commissioner shall cancel the registration. The section 12 relate to voluntary registration of dealers and section 14 pertains to special registration, with which we are not concerned in the matter. 10.The section 13 relates to provisional registration and sub-section (1) thereof provides that any person who intends to establish a business in the Union Territory of Daman and Diu for the purpose of manufacturing or producing goods of a value exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per year, may, notwithstanding that he is not required to register himself under section 11, apply in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority for provisional registration under the said Act. 10,000/- per year, may, notwithstanding that he is not required to register himself under section 11, apply in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority for provisional registration under the said Act. The sub-section (2) thereof provides that if the said authority, after making such inquires as it may consider necessary, is satisfied as to the bona fide intention of the person making the application, it may grant a provisional certificate of registration on such person furnishing such security as it may consider necessary and shall specify in such certificate the class or classes of goods for the purpose of Clause (II) of sub-section (3) of section 7. The section 13(3) provides that every person who has been granted a provisional certificate of registration under the said section shall, for so long as such certificate is in force, be liable to pay tax under the said Act. The sub-section (4) thereof provides that a provisional certificate of registration shall be in force for such period as may be specified therein and the provisions of sub-sections (4), (7) and (8) of section 11 shall apply to such certificate of registration. In other words, every person obtaining a provisional certificate of registration under the said Act steps in the shoes of a dealer under the said Act. This is made further clear by the provisions of law contained in section 23 r/w section 15 of the said Act. In terms of section 15(2), every registered dealer shall furnish returns of total turnover of the period to which such return relates in such manner and by such date and to such authority as may be prescribed. The Commissioner is also empowered to require any dealer to furnish such return. 11.The section 23 provides that if any dealer to whom the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 15 apply, changes the name or nature of his business or effects any change in the class or classes of goods in which he carries on his business and which is or are specified in his certificate of registration, as also sells or otherwise disposes of his business or any part of his business, or effects or comes to know of any other change in the ownership of the business, then he shall within the prescribed time inform the prescribed authority accordingly. In other words, if the person who has obtained provisional certificate of registration disclosing certain goods as the product of manufacture in the industry which is established in Daman or Diu and which is entitled to avail exemption from payment of sale tax in respect of the goods manufactured in such industry and in the course of business, causes or effect any change in the goods manufactured by it, then it is necessary to inform the prescribed authority under section 23(c) and to get the certificate amended under section 13(4) r/w section 11(4) of the said Act, failing which the registration can be cancelled by the Commissioner under section 11(7) and (8) of the said Act. 12.The sub-section (4) of section 24 provides that where as dealer, liable to pay tax under the said Act, transfers or otherwise disposes of his business in whole or in part, or effects any change in the ownership thereof, in consequence of which he is succeeded in the business or part thereof by any other person, the dealer and the person succeeding shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the tax, including any penalty, due from the dealer under the said Act, upto the time of such transfer, disposal or change, whether such tax, including any penalty, has been assessed before such transfer, disposal or change but has remained unpaid, or is assessed thereafter. The section 24(6) provides that where a dealer, liable to pay tax under this Act, is succeeded in the business by any person in the manner described in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) or in sub-section (4), then such person shall be liable to pay tax on the sales of goods made by him on and after the date of such succession, and shall, unless he already holds a certificate of registration, within 30 days thereof apply for registration. 13.Considering the provisions of law in the said Act, it is, therefore, clear that the registration of the industry, simultaneously disclosing goods or class of goods manufactured in such industry is absolutely necessary to enable such industry to avail benefit of exemption from payment of tax in terms of section 10(1) r/w the Second Schedule of the said Act. The charging provisions of law in taxing statutes are necessarily to be construed strictly. The charging provisions of law in taxing statutes are necessarily to be construed strictly. There can be no scope for inclusion or exclusion in or from such provisions of law by way of interpretation thereof. There can neither be any enlargement nor abridgement of any benefit available under any exemption notification or provision under a taxing statute. Bearing this in mind, if one reads the Entry No. 68 in the Second Schedule along with other provisions of law in the said Act and more particularly section 10(1) r/w sections 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 23 and 24 of the said Act, it is absolutely clear that the requirement of registration under the said Act applies not only to the industry but also to the goods or class of goods manufactured by such industry. This would obviously reveal that the benefit under the said Entry No. 68 was restricted to goods manufactured as per the registration certificate by the industries registered under the said Act. 14.The entire case of the petitioners is based on the contention that Sharda Industries was entitled for exemption from payment of sales tax in terms of the Entry No. 68 and the petitioners are the successors of Sharda Industries and therefore in terms of Clauses 7 and 9 of the second notification of December are lawfully entitled to avail the said exemption benefit for the period for which Sharda Industries would have been otherwise entitled to avail the same and such benefit cannot be taken away or denied to the petitioners and therefore the impugned notifications are bad in law, and in any case the retrospective effect which is sought to be given to the impugned notifications to deny the said benefit is impermissible in law. 15.There is no doubt that Sharda Industries had obtained registration for the manufacture of corrugated board and some other items much prior to the issuance of the first notification of December and prior to the deletion of the Entry No. 68 from the Second Schedule of the said Act. Therefore it cannot be disputed that Sharda Industries were entitled to claim benefit under the Entry No. 68 in relation to the said goods even after issuance of the first notification of December in view of the provisions contained in Clauses VII, VIII and IX of the second notification of December. Therefore it cannot be disputed that Sharda Industries were entitled to claim benefit under the Entry No. 68 in relation to the said goods even after issuance of the first notification of December in view of the provisions contained in Clauses VII, VIII and IX of the second notification of December. It is equally true that the petitioners are the successors of Sharda Industries consequent to transfer of the industrial establishment of Sharda Industries in favour of the petitioners under conveyance dated 8-3-2001 and therefore the petitioners stepped in the shoes of Sharda Industries for all purposes, including the liability, if any, under the said Act as well as for the benefits available under the said Act. 16.The contention of the respondents, however, is that the impugned notifications are merely clarificatory in nature and the same seek to clarify that the assurance given under Clause IX of the second notification of December would be available to those industries who had not effected any change upto 30-4-2000 in the class of goods which wee being manufactured in terms of the certificate of registration obtained by those industries. In other words, those industries who had brought about any change in the product manufactured by them after 30-4-2000 and if such product was not covered by the certificate of registration obtained prior to the date of 31-12-1999, then such industry would not be entitled to claim the benefit under the Entry No. 68 by taking shelter of Clause IX of the second notification of December. 17.The Clause IX of the second notification of December read thus:-- "In the case of a Small Scale or Medium Scale or large Scale Industry enjoying the benefit of 15 years/10 years/5 years exemption under Entry No. 68 or Entry No. 85 of the Second Schedule appended to the said Act as it stood immediately prior to the date of coming into force of the Notification No. DMN/ST/4-1/99/1 dated 31st December, 1999, it shall continue to enjoy the exemption for the balance of the unexpired period of 15 years/10 years/5 years respectively under this notification." 18.Obviously, the above clause empowers the industries which were enjoying the benefit of exemption under the Entry No. 68 prior to the issuance of the first notification of December to continue to enjoy such exemption for the unexpired balance period of the total period for which such industry was entitled to enjoy the benefit under the Entry No. 68. The assurance for continuation of exemption from the payment of sale tax was obviously restricted to the industries which were enjoying the benefit of exemption under the Entry No. 68 prior to 31-12-1999. As already observed above, the entry clearly related to the products which were disclosed in the registration certificate. Therefore, even without clarification by the impugned notifications, the Clause IX quoted above r/w the Entry No. 68 and the other provisions of the said Act obviously revealed that continuation of the benefit was restricted to those industries which were manufacturing the products as per the registration certificates issued to them and which were in force prior to 31-12-1999. 19.Plain reading of Clause IX of the second notification of December and the Entry No. 68, therefore, would disclose that even after deletion of the Entry No. 68 exemption from the payment of sale tax under the Entry No. 68, which was available to the industries and those which were enjoying the same prior to 31-12-1999 were allowed to continue to enjoy the same for the balance period of exemption in relation to those goods, the production of which had commenced by such industries prior to April, 2000 provided that the goods so manufactured were in terms of the registration certificate obtained prior to 31-12-1999. In other words, the impugned notifications merely sought to clarify that the exemption would be available only in relation to the products which were manufactured by the industries which were availing such exemption prior to 31-12-1999 provided that there had been no change in production of such goods even after 30-4-2000. 20.It is true that by virtue of the first notification of December, the exemption Entry No. 68 stood deleted from the Second Schedule of the said Act. The effect of deletion being that the exemption which was available under the said entry could not be claimed w.e.f. 1-1-2000, but for Clause IX of the second notification of December. It is pertinent to note that the second notification of December was issued in terms of sub-section (1) of section 10-A of the said Act. The sub-section (1) of section 10-A empowers the Government to exempt any class of dealers or any specified class of sales from the payment of tax under the said Act. In other words, the Government is empowered to exempt any particular type of product from payment of tax under the said Act under the said provision of law, as also class of dealers themselves. The impugned notifications clearly disclose that the same were issued in exercise of power conferred under section 10-A of the said Act r/w Clause IX of the second notification of December and section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Clause IX of the second notification of December empowers the Government to issue directives from time to time for effective implementation of the said second notification of December. The impugned notifications also disclose various instances and reasons which compelled the Government to clarify the scope of Clause IX of the second notification of December. The petitioners have not been able to controvert any of those reasons or instances disclosed in the said notification nor have been able to lay any factual foundation to assail the impugned notifications. The impugned notifications also disclose various instances and reasons which compelled the Government to clarify the scope of Clause IX of the second notification of December. The petitioners have not been able to controvert any of those reasons or instances disclosed in the said notification nor have been able to lay any factual foundation to assail the impugned notifications. Once the Government has been delegated power under a statute to take effective measures for due implementation of the provisions of law in a statute and one of such provisions empowers the Government to exempt either class of dealers or specified class of sales from the payment, whole or in part, from the payment of the tax under the said Act and the Entry No. 68 having been totally deleted from the Second Schedule, but on deletion of such entry similar exemption is made available by virtue of the notification issued under section 10-A to specified industries and the product manufactured by them pursuant to the registration obtained in terms of the provisions of law and as per the requirement of the said Entry No. 68, nothing can prevent the Government from clarifying the exemption to be referable to a particular class of products and, more particularly, when cogent reasons are disclosed for taking the necessary steps in relation to the clarification of the provision regarding the exemption from the payment of sales tax. Being so, the contention of the petitioners that the impugned notifications are bad in law is devoid of substance. 21.As already seen above, the production had commenced by Sharda Industries on 24-2-2001 and the entire establishment was purchased by the petitioners on 8-3-2001. Though Sharda Industries commenced production with effect from 24-2-2001, the registration regarding class of goods to be manufactured by Sharda Industries was amended with effect from 20-2-2001. In other words, there was no production of goods prior to 31-12-1999 or even 30-4-2000 by Sharda Industries and the products which were manufactured by Sharda Industries from 24-2-2001, were pursuant to the amended registration. Being so, even Sharda Industries were not entitled to claim any benefit under the Entry No. 68 r/w Clause IX of the second notification of December in relation to the product manufactured in terms of amended registration certificate. Being so, even Sharda Industries were not entitled to claim any benefit under the Entry No. 68 r/w Clause IX of the second notification of December in relation to the product manufactured in terms of amended registration certificate. Undisputedly the products manufactured by the petitioners are not in terms of unamended registration certificate issued to Sharda Industries, but are in terms of amended certificate of registration issued on 20-2-2001. In other words, the petitioners would also be not entitled to avail the benefit of exemption under the said provisions of law. 22.The decisions in the matters of Krishna Kumar Kabra, Shri Krishna Enterprises, The Yemmiganur Spinning Mills Limited, Shree Hanuman Match Works, Shew Bhagwan Goenka, Sabarkantha District Co-op., D. Cawasji, Solvex Oil, Lalchand Bhagat and Tata Engineering, relied upon by the Advocate for the petitioners, are of no help to the petitioners in the case in hand. They relate to the issue of retrospective operation or retrospective effect of the provision of law or rules and notification. Once it is held that the impugned notifications are not retrospective in nature and are merely clarificatory in nature, the said decisions are of no assistance to the petitioners to challenge the impugned notifications on the ground of retrospective applicability thereof. As regards the decision in Indian Cement, the same relates to the point relating to restrain on the powers of executive authorities in terms of Article 301 of the Constitution of India in the sense that the delegated authority should not act in violation of the provisions of Article 301, and the same is of no help in the case in hand. As regards the decisions in Dai Ichi Karkaria and J.S. Ramesh are concerned, they are also of no help as there is no challenge to the first notification of December or to the second notification of December, or withdrawal of exemption under the said Entry No. 68. 23.The decision in Podar Cement is to the effect that the Rule against retrospectively is not applicable to declaratory provisions. In Hico Products it was held that a taxing statute which validates imposition of tax earlier held invalid by the Court of law can be retrospective in operation and be not on that account be considered as unsustainable or violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, especially when the tax is already collected. In Hico Products it was held that a taxing statute which validates imposition of tax earlier held invalid by the Court of law can be retrospective in operation and be not on that account be considered as unsustainable or violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, especially when the tax is already collected. In Tata Engineering, relied upon by the respondents, the retrospective amendment to Rule 41-E of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 was held to be valid and lawful. 24.In Aflon Engineering Corporation (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that:- "11. The 1971 notification did not elaborate or specify as to what would be regarded as a rigid plastic sheet. In order that there should be no ambiguity as to what is to be categorised as a flexible or rigid material the explanation was inserted in 1978. It is rightly not being contended that the Central Government could not have included the explanation at the time when the notification was first promulgated in 1971. The Central Government could at that very first instance restrict the ambit of the exemption notification to a particular variety of goods. After all, no manufacturer has a right to claim exemption. It is a relief which is granted by the Government in case where it thinks appropriate and proper. Exemptions could be granted subject to certain conditions. They may even be granted, as in this particular case, to a small variety of items which would otherwise fall under Tariff Item 15-A. If the explanation could have been inserted in 1971 when the exemption was first promulgated there is, in our opinion, no legal impediment in the Government issuing a notification which has the effect of amending an earlier notification and thereby restricting the operation of the exemption notification. Under the General Clauses Act when power is given to the Government to issue notification there is inherent in the same power to amend the same. This is precisely what has happened in the present case." 25.In Arvind Industries, it was held that the Government is entitled to grant exemption to industries having regard to the industrial policy of the Government, and the Government is equally free to modify its industrial policy and grant, withdraw or modify fiscal benefits from time to time. However, the decision in Punjab Traders is of no much help to the respondents in this case. However, the decision in Punjab Traders is of no much help to the respondents in this case. Since the action is not sought to be justified on the grounds extraneous to the impugned notifications or impugned notice, the decision in Mohinder Singh Gills case is also of no help in the matter to the petitioners. 26.The fall out of the above discussion is that the first question stands answered in the affirmative. As regards the second question, considering the impugned notifications being clarificatory in nature, the question of declaring the impugned notifications being bad in law does not arise. The grievance of the petitioners regarding refusal of the benefit also does not merit any consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of seizure of books cannot be found fault with. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----