Exemption notification interpreted strictly: capacity expansion alone did not satisfy the original condition, and the later amendment was prospective.

Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 depended on satisfaction of the then-applicable condition of modernisation. On the facts found by the authorities, the unit had only undergone capacity expansion, not modernisation, so the appellant did not qualify for the benefit at the relevant time. The later amendment extending the notification to capacity expansion was held to be prospective because it was not clarificatory in nature. The appellant therefore could not invoke the amended wording to claim retrospective relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 on the basis of capacity expansion of the existing unit, and whether the later amendment extending the benefit to capacity expansion operated retrospectively as a clarificatory change.

Analysis: The finding of fact recorded by the authorities was that the unit had undergone only capacity expansion and not modernisation. Since the notification at the relevant time required modernisation as a condition for availing the benefit, the appellant did not satisfy the applicable eligibility criterion. The later amendment adding capacity expansion was held to be prospective in operation because it was not clarificatory in nature.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the notification on the facts found, and the subsequent amendment did not apply retrospectively.

---