Judgment :- Ramesh Ranganathan, J. In this batch of three Writ Petitions the petitioner seeks to have the order of the respondent dated 10.12.2010, whereby their waiver application for the assessment year 1999-2000 was rejected, declared as illegal and arbitrary. They seek a consequential direction to the respondent to waive the interest, charged under Section 234-B and C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs.23,76,542/-. The facts in W.P. No.9092 of 2011 can be taken as representing the facts in all the three Writ Petitions. The petitioner, a company engaged in the business of aqua farms and power generation, filed their return of income for Rs.2,31,958/-. They claimed deduction under Section 80-HHC of the Income-Tax Act (the “Act” – for short) for Rs.59,69,067/- placing support on the disclaimer certificates issued in their favour by M/s. Adani Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad, M/s. Water Base Ltd., Madras, M/s. Vivil Exports Ltd., Mumbai and The Silk Base Company Ltd., Chennai through whom the petitioner had exported their marine products. The return was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act, by the assessing authority, by his order dated 14.02.2000. Thereafter the assessing officer initiated re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in IPCA laboratories Ltd.., v. CIT (2004 (266) ITR 521 = AIR 2004 SC 3046 ), the petitioner was not eligible for deduction under Section 80-HHC of the Act. The re-assessment was completed and the deduction granted earlier, under Section 80-HHC of the Act, for Rs.59,69,067/- was added back to the petitioner’s income as M/s. Vivil Exports Ltd., Mumbai, one of the export houses, had incurred a loss and the petitioner, a supporting manufacturer, was therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80-HHC of the Act on the basis of the disclaimer certificate given by such an export house. The income of the petitioner was re-assessed at Rs.62,01,025/-. The petitioner was also charged interest, under Section 234-B & C of the Act, for short payment of advance tax. The petitioner submitted an application on 26.05.2007 requesting the respondent to exercise his powers under Section 119(2)(a) of the Act, and waive the said interest. The income of the petitioner was re-assessed at Rs.62,01,025/-. The petitioner was also charged interest, under Section 234-B & C of the Act, for short payment of advance tax. The petitioner submitted an application on 26.05.2007 requesting the respondent to exercise his powers under Section 119(2)(a) of the Act, and waive the said interest. In their application the petitioner stated that their claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act was on the basis, that they were a supporting manufacturer; they had relied on the disclaimer certificates issued in their favour by the export houses which had not claimed deduction under Section 80-HHC; the deduction claim by them, under Section 80-HHC of the Act, was disallowed by the assessing officer relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratories Limited (supra); the judgment in IPCA Laboratories Limited (supra) was pronounced after they had filed their return for the assessment year 1999-2000; the assessment was completed on 26.12.2006 on the basis of the said decision of the Supreme Court; a copy of the assessment order was served on them on 11.01.2007; and, as such, the interest charged under Section 234- (B) and (C) of the Act for Rs.23,76,542/- should be waived as they were disabled, by genuine and reasonable causes, from payment of advance tax. In the impugned order, whereby the petitioner’s request for waiver of interest was rejected, the respondent records that the power to waive interest, referable to Section 119(2)(a) of the Act, had been reiterated in the CBDT order dated 26.06.2006; the conditions stipulated in the CBDT order were not fulfilled in the present case; no amendment of law was in issue in IPCA Laboratories Limited, and the Supreme Court had only stated the legal position with regards eligibility for deduction under Section 80HHC which was already a part of the Act; hence para 2(c) of the CBDT order dated 26.06.2006 was not applicable in the present case; the petitioner’s claim that facts relating to export of merchandise by them, through for export houses, were not taken into consideration at the time of assessment was irrelevant in deciding their request for waiver of interest under Section 234(B) & (C) of the Act; none of the other conditions, stipulated in the CBDT order dated 26.06.2006, were applicable to the petitioner’s case; and, hence, they were not entitled for waiver of interest, charged under Section 234-B & C, for the assessment year 1999-2000. Sri K. Vasanth Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that Section 80-HHC of the Act was amended retrospectively; the export houses, which issued the disclaimer certificates, were not extended the benefit of deduction under Section 80HHC; the petitioner’s case falls squarely within the ambit of the CBDT order dated 26.06.2006, and the CBDT circular dated 17.01.2006; the assessing officer had considered the case of only one export house i.e., M/s. Vivil Export House Ltd., and not the other export houses; and the petitioner was eligible for waiver of interest as the export houses, which had issued disclaimer certificates in their favour, had not claimed the benefit of deduction, under Section 80-HHC of the Act, on the exports. Paras2(ix), (x) & (xi) of the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 records the submission of the petitioner that their case does not fall within the purview of the CBDT circular No.2 of 2006 dated 17.01.2006; if the export house is entitled for waiver, as per the circular of CBDT, the supporting manufacturer must also be held to be entitled for such waiver; their letter dated 16.12.2010, wherein they had stated all relevant facts regarding supply of merchandise to export houses, was not taken into consideration by the assessing officer while assessing them to tax; and the disclaimer certificates, issued in their favour by three of the export houses, were not considered. In IPCA Laboratories Limited (supra), the Supreme Court held that, in arriving at the figure of positive profit both profits and losses from trading and manufacturing activities will have to be considered; if the net figure is positive profit then the assessee will be entitled to deduction under Section 80-HHC; and, if the net figure is a loss, the assessee will not be entitled to deduction. Under the proviso to Section 80-HHC(1), and 80-HHC(1A), a supporting manufacturer may also be entitled, under certain conditions, to the benefit of deduction from its profits with regards a part of its export turnover. Explanation (D) to Section 80-HHC defines “supporting manufacturer” to mean a person being an Indian company, or a person (other than a company) resident in India, manufacturing goods or merchandise and selling such goods or merchandise to an Export House or a Trading House for the purposes of export. On Section 80-HHC of the Act being amended retrospectively the Central Board of Direct Taxes, (“CBDT”), issued circular dated 17.01.2006. The said circular records that the amended Section 80-HHC provided that profits on sale of DEPB credits or Duty Free Replenishment Certificates would be treated at par with duty drawback for the purposes of proportionate increase of profits derived from exports computed under Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 80 HHC (3) of the Act. As the amendment relating to DEPB Scheme and DRC was brought into the Statute with retrospective effect, the CBDT circular dated 17.1.2006 provides that no interest shall be charged in respect of any fresh demand raised consequent to the amendment on account to variation in the returned/assessed income attributable to profits on sale of DEPB credits or DFRC. As the amendment relating to DEPB Scheme and DRC was brought into the Statute with retrospective effect, the CBDT circular dated 17.1.2006 provides that no interest shall be charged in respect of any fresh demand raised consequent to the amendment on account to variation in the returned/assessed income attributable to profits on sale of DEPB credits or DFRC. Further, in cases where assessments have already been completed and interest has been charged, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is required, under the CBDT circular dated 17.1.2006, to waive interest relating to claim of profit on the sale of DEPB credit or DFRC for deduction under Section 80-HHC of the Act. It is not even the petitioner’s case, as is clear from their submission to the respondent, that they are entitled for benefit under the CBDT circular dated 17.2.2006. Clause 2(c) of the CBDT order dated 26.06.2006 reads as under: “Where any income was not chargeable to income-tax in the case of an assessee on the basis of any order passed by the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is assessable to income-tax in relation to such income in any previous year, and subsequently, in consequence of any retrospective amendment of law or the decision of the Supreme Court of India or, as the case may be, a decision of a larger Bench of the jurisdictional High Court (which was not challenged before the Supreme Court and has become final), in any assessment or re-assessment proceedings, the advance tax paid by the assessee during such financial year is found to be less than the amount of advance tax payable on his current income, and the assessee is chargeable to interest under Section 234B or Section 234C, and the Chief Commissioner/Director General is satisfied that this a fit case for reduction or waiver of such interest.” To fall within the ambit of Clause 2(c) of the CBDT order dated 26.06.2006, for being entitled to waiver of interest charged under Section 234-B and C of the Act, the following conditions must be satisfied:- i. Income of the assessee should not chargeable to income tax on the basis of an order passed by the High Court within whose jurisdiction he is assessable to tax; ii. As a result, the assessee did not pay income-tax in relation to such income in any previous year; iii. As a result, the assessee did not pay income-tax in relation to such income in any previous year; iii. Subsequently, as a result of:- (a) retrospective amendment of the law, or (b) the decision of the Supreme Court, or (c) the decision of a Larger Bench of the jurisdictional High Court; the advance tax paid by the assessee during such financial year is found, in any assessment or re-assessment proceedings, to be less than the amount of advance tax payable on his current income; iv. The assessee is charged interest under Section 234-B and 234-C of the Act; v. The Chief Commissioner/Director General is satisfied that it is a fit case for reduction or waiver of such interest. Admittedly, in the present case, it was not on the basis of any order passed by the High Court, within whose jurisdiction they were assessed to tax, that the petitioner’s income was not chargeable to income-tax. As rightly held by the respondent, the law was not amended consequent upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratories Limited (supra), and the requirement of payment of advance tax is not on account of a subsequent retrospective amendment of the law. It is also not on account to a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or a decision of a Larger bench of the High Court. The interest, which the petitioner was charged, under Section 234-B and C of the Act is not as a result of short payment of advance tax during the financial year because of such a situation. It is evident, therefore, that the conditions laid down in the CBDT order dated 26.06.2006 are not satisfied in the case on hand. The petitioner was charged interest, under Section 234-B and C of the Act, at the stage of re-assessment and failure, if any, by the assessing officer in not taking into consideration the factum of export of merchandise through four export houses, could not have been, and was rightly not, taken into consideration by the respondent as these are matters for examination only in an appeal preferred against the assessment order, and not for the respondent to consider while examining a claim for waiver of interest under Section 119(2)(a) of the Act. Sri K. Vasanth Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would further contend that, as the CBDT circular dated 17.01.2006 does not extend a similar benefit of waiver to a supporting manufacturer as is extended to an exporter, the said circular is discriminatory. In the absence of any challenge in this Writ Petition, to the validity of the said circular, we see no reason to examine this contention. Suffice to observe that it is only if the petitioner’s case falls squarely within the ambit of the CBDT’s order dated 26.06.2006, or the CBDT circular dated 17.01.2006, would they be justified in their submission that the respondent should have exercised his discretion under Section 119 (2)(a) of the Act, and considered their claim for waiver of interest charged earlier under Section 234-B or C of the Act. As the petitioner’s case does not fall within the ambit of either of two circulars the impugned order of the respondent dated 10.12.2010 is valid, and does not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These Writ Petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.