Industrial exemption cannot be denied on a selective admission; whole-record review and explanatory evidence remain essential.

An industrial exemption under the applicable notification could be denied only if production had been discontinued for more than six months at a stretch, and the record did not sustain that threshold on the material considered. An alleged admission was not conclusive and had to be read with the document as a whole and the explanatory evidence; the authority's selective reliance on the admission without assessing the surrounding records made the exemption denial unsustainable, so the adverse order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the industrial unit was disqualified from exemption under the applicable notification on the ground that production had been discontinued for a period exceeding six months at a stretch; (ii) whether the authority could rest its decision solely on an alleged admission without considering the document as a whole and the explanatory evidence produced by the petitioner.

Issue (i): Whether the industrial unit was disqualified from exemption under the applicable notification on the ground that production had been discontinued for a period exceeding six months at a stretch.

Analysis: The relevant notification denied the benefit only where the industrial unit had discontinued production for a period exceeding six months at a stretch. The record showed competing material on the period of closure, including survey reports, correspondence, and the production register. The question was not whether there had been some closure, but whether the closure crossed the statutory threshold of continuous discontinuance for more than six months.

Conclusion: The finding that the unit had remained closed for a period exceeding six months at a stretch was not sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the authority could rest its decision solely on an alleged admission without considering the document as a whole and the explanatory evidence produced by the petitioner.

Analysis: An admission is strong evidence but is not conclusive and may be explained or shown to be erroneous. A document containing an alleged admission must be read as a whole, and the authority must consider contemporaneous evidence relied on to explain or contradict it. Here, the authority relied on a selective reading of the material and did not adequately consider the surrounding documents and factual explanation offered by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable because it treated the alleged admission as decisive without proper evaluation of the whole record and the explanatory evidence.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief against the adverse exemption determination, and the matter was sent back for fresh decision after opportunity to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An alleged admission is not conclusive and must be construed with the document as a whole and in the light of explanatory evidence; exemption can be denied only when the statutory condition of discontinuance beyond six months at a stretch is established on proper consideration of the entire record.

---