Rural area status under excise exemption notifications depended on master plan evidence; village Atun stayed eligible for concession.

Eligibility for concessional excise duty under the notified exemptions turned on whether village Atun was an urban area. The 1981 government order relied on by the Department only directed a civic survey and master plan exercise for Bhilwara and did not itself notify Atun as urban. The later clarification tied urbanisable limits to a master plan or municipal limits, but no material showed that Atun had been included within such limits. On that basis, Atun remained a rural area and the benefit of Notification No. 9/2001-C.E. and Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. was available.

---

---

Issues: Whether village Atun was shown to be an urban area so as to deny the benefit of the concessional duty notifications, or whether it remained a rural area for eligibility under the exemption notifications.

Analysis: The notifications denied the concession only where branded goods were manufactured in a factory located in a rural area. The record showed that the 1981 governmental order relied upon by the Department merely directed a civic survey and preparation of a master plan for the urban area of Bhilwara and listed village Atun among the revenue villages; it did not itself notify Atun as an urban area. The Court also noted that the later statutory clarification on urbanisable limits linked such limits to the master plan or municipal limits, and there was no material showing that a master plan had been prepared including Atun within the urban area. The adjudicating authority had therefore misread the 1981 order, while the appellate authority had taken the correct view.

Conclusion: Village Atun was not proved to be an urban area, and the respondents remained entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 9/2001-C.E. and Notification No. 9/2003-C.E.; the Revenue's appeal failed.

---