Exemption notification interpretation supports industrial units where employment expansion and notified-area location are established on record.

Exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. was described as available where the units showed additional investment in plant and machinery together with more than 25% increase in regular employment, and the record, including Labour Officer and District Industries Centre certificates, was treated as sufficient to establish that condition. The note also states that location-based eligibility depends on a fair reading of the notification's identified industrial area, and that units in Gangyal Private Land Industrial Area fell within the notified khasra range despite the Revenue's objection on precise khasra description. On that approach, the denial of exemption was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent units satisfied the condition of additional investment resulting in more than 25% increase in regular employment for availing exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E.; (ii) Whether the respondent units were located within the industrial area covered by the notification despite the Revenue's objection based on the khasra numbers.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent units satisfied the condition of additional investment resulting in more than 25% increase in regular employment for availing exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E.

Analysis: The certificate issued by the Labour Officer, Jammu, read with the certificates issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, showed that regular employment in the units had increased beyond the base level after additional investment in plant and machinery. The departmental objection that the base employment figure was not mentioned was not accepted, as the materials on record established the increase in regular employment. The additional investment itself was also not disputed.

Conclusion: The condition of additional investment resulting in more than 25% increase in regular employment stood satisfied in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent units were located within the industrial area covered by the notification despite the Revenue's objection based on the khasra numbers.

Analysis: The notification identified eligible locations by tehsil, police station or village, and the khasra range comprising the industrial area. The units were found to be situated in Gangyal Private Land Industrial Area under Gangyal Police Station, and the khasra numbers 770 and 770 min fell within the notified range of khasra numbers for that area. The objection that those precise khasra numbers were not separately named in the notification was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The respondent units were held to be within the notified industrial area and entitled to the exemption.

Final Conclusion: The denial of exemption was held unsustainable and the Revenue's challenge failed, leaving the exemption intact for the respondent units.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence establishes compliance with the employment-expansion condition and the unit's location falls within the notified industrial area on a fair reading of the exemption notification, the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied on a hyper-technical objection to the description of the khasra numbers.

---