Exemption notification interpretation favors expansion and diversification where the unit satisfies the plain terms of the condition.

Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 1/2010-CE turns on the plain language of the notification, not on any assumed contrary intention. The condition in para 8(b)(i) was interpreted to cover both expansion of capacity of the existing product and diversification from the existing product. On the recorded facts, the unit installed new plant and machinery, increased manufacturing capacity, and shifted from manufacturing one product to another, bringing it within the notification. As there was no restriction limiting expansion only to the installed capacity of the same product, the exemption could not be denied once the assessee satisfied the notification's terms.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 on the basis of substantial expansion and diversification of the unit.

Analysis: The benefit of an exemption notification has to be determined from the language used in the notification. The condition in para 8(b)(i) was read as covering expansion of capacity of the existing product as well as diversification from the existing product. The factual findings recorded below showed installation and use of new plant and machinery, increase in manufacturing capacity, and a shift from manufacturing one product to another, which satisfied the notification. No restriction was found in the notification limiting expansion only to the installed capacity of the same product. Once the assessee fell within the plain terms of the notification, the benefit could not be denied on a supposed contrary intention.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the benefit of the notification, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---