Exemption proviso for powerloom units turns on commencement of production, not acquisition date of the machinery.

An exemption proviso tied to the date 1 April 1961 was held to relate to the commencement of production of cotton fabrics, not to the date on which powerlooms were acquired. The exemption was therefore withdrawn where manufacture began for the first time on or after that date, even if the looms had been acquired earlier or later, provided they were obtained from a person who was or had been a licensee of a powerloom factory. A later proviso for small powerloom units using not more than four looms in one shift had to be read harmoniously and could not override the earlier exclusion where it specifically applied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proviso introduced by the notification dated 1 April 1961 and the corresponding proviso in the notification dated 5 January 1957 were attracted only if both the commencement of production and the acquisition of powerlooms occurred on or after 1 April 1961, and whether the later proviso excluding duty liability for small powerloom units displaced that construction.

Analysis: The exemption under the notifications had to be read according to the plain language used. The relevant date, 1 April 1961, qualified the commencement of production of cotton fabrics, not the date of acquisition of the powerlooms. It was immaterial when the powerlooms were acquired so long as they were obtained from a person who was or had been a licensee of a powerloom factory. The proviso therefore withdrew the exemption where manufacture commenced for the first time on or after that date. The later proviso granting exemption to persons employing not more than four powerlooms and working them in not more than one shift had to be harmoniously construed with the earlier proviso and could not be read to nullify the substantive charging effect of the earlier proviso in the cases it covered.

Conclusion: The provisos applied if manufacture on the powerlooms commenced for the first time on or after 1 April 1961, regardless of when the powerlooms were acquired, and the High Court's contrary construction was incorrect.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the wording of an exemption proviso clearly links the qualifying date to commencement of production, that date cannot be shifted to the acquisition of machinery, and a later exemption proviso must yield in cases specifically covered by the earlier substantive exclusion.

---