Plain language interpretation of exemption notification allowed substantial expansion benefit without a post-06.02.2010 investment .

Notification No. 01/2010-CE, serial no. 8(i), was applied to industrial units existing before 06.02.2010 that undertake substantial expansion by increasing fixed capital investment in plant and machinery by at least 25% and start commercial production from the expanded capacity on or after that date. The text states that the provision does not require the investment itself to be made after 06.02.2010, and that such a post-date condition cannot be imported from serial no. 8(ii). A Director, Industries Centre certificate was noted as establishing commencement of production from the expanded capacity on 12.11.2012, and the commentary concludes that the exemption was wrongly denied and should have been allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 for substantial expansion under serial no. 8(i), and whether the condition of investment in plant and machinery having been made only after 06.02.2010 could be read into that provision.

Analysis: Serial no. 8(i) of the notification applies to industrial units existing before 06.02.2010 that undertake substantial expansion by way of increase of not less than 25% in the value of fixed capital investment in plant and machinery and commence commercial production from the expanded capacity on or after 06.02.2010. The provision does not prescribe that the investment itself must be made after 06.02.2010. The distinction between serial nos. 8(i) and 8(ii) shows that where the notification intended a post-06.02.2010 investment condition, it said so expressly. The authorities could not import the condition from serial no. 8(ii) into serial no. 8(i). The certificate of the Director, Industries Centre, established commencement of commercial production from the expanded capacity on 12.11.2012, and the investment after 31.03.2004 was found to satisfy the expansion requirement.

Conclusion: The appellant satisfied the requirements of serial no. 8(i) of Notification No. 01/2010-CE and was wrongly denied exemption.

Final Conclusion: The denial of exemption was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be construed according to its plain language, and a condition not expressly provided for in the relevant entry cannot be imported from another entry to deny the benefit.

---