Capital investment exemption under Notification 89/79-C.E. must be tested by face value at the time of investment, not misapplied aggregation.

Exemption under Notification No. 89/79-C.E. depended on whether the capital investment in the relevant industrial unit stayed within the prescribed limit. The applicable unit was the one in which the cleared goods were manufactured, and the notification's explanation required the face value of each investment to be taken at the time it was made, rather than aggregating investment on another basis. The challenged order had not applied this method correctly or properly determined eligibility on that footing. The claim was therefore required to be reconsidered under the correct interpretation, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 89/79-C.E. on the basis of the capital investment in the industrial unit, and whether the proper method was to determine eligibility by the sum total of investment or by the face value of investment at the time it was made.

Analysis: The notification required satisfaction that the capital investment in the industrial unit was within the prescribed limit. The relevant unit was the one in which the goods under clearance were manufactured, namely the unit operated by the appellants. The notification also contained an explanation that, for determining the value of capital investment, only the face value of the investment at the time when it was made was to be taken into account. The order under challenge had proceeded without properly applying this requirement and without adequately determining the relevant value on that basis.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to have their claim reconsidered under the correct interpretation of the notification, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---