Genuine vouchers and compliance with notification conditions were essential; false purchase records defeated eligibility for the certificate.

The Tribunal interpreted "plant and machinery" in the notification in its popular and commercial sense, covering instruments, apparatus and equipment used in the manufacturing process, and accepted that the disputed items formed part of the industrial set-up. It nevertheless found that a substantial part of the purchase vouchers were fictitious, unsupported or otherwise not genuine, including entries with overwriting, incorrect purchaser details and false supplier particulars. Because the applicant failed to produce genuine vouchers and other documents needed to prove compliance with the notification conditions, the first proviso and clause (v) of the explanation were breached. The plea of abnormal delay did not cure that non-compliance, and eligibility for the certificate was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to an eligibility certificate under Notification No. 1177-F.T. dated March 31, 1983 when a substantial part of the purchase documents for plant and machinery were found to be false or not genuine, and whether the plea of delay in disposal could override the breach of the notification conditions.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the expression "plant and machinery" in the notification had to be understood in its popular and commercial sense and would include instruments, apparatus and equipment used for the manufacturing process. The applicant's own materials showed that the disputed items were treated as plant and machinery in the balance sheet and were part of the industrial set-up. On the evidence, however, the purchase vouchers for a sizeable portion of the investment were found to be fictitious or unsupported, including intra-State and inter-State purchases that could not be verified and, in some cases, contained overwriting, wrong purchaser details, or false supplier particulars. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had failed to keep genuine vouchers and other documents necessary to establish compliance with the conditions of the notification. Since the applicant had breached the first proviso and clause (v) of the explanation to the notification, the plea of abnormal delay did not entitle the applicant to the certificate.

Conclusion: The applicant was not eligible for the benefit of the notification and the challenge failed.

---