Plain language of exemption notification denied concessional cement duty where clinker came from a non-qualifying factory.

Cement was not eligible for the concessional rate under Notification No. 124/87-C.E. because the clinker used was produced in a separate factory that commenced production only in 1988, outside the period specified in the notification. The notification was construed on its plain language: the concessional rate applied only where cement was manufactured in a qualifying factory and the clinker was produced within the same factory or another factory of the same manufacturer that had also commenced production during the stated period. A harmonious construction was rejected because the wording was clear and unambiguous. The higher duty under Notification No. 35/88-C.E. therefore applied.

---

---

Issues: Whether cement manufactured in a factory that commenced production in 1983 could claim the concessional rate under Notification No. 124/87-C.E. dated 29-04-1987 when the clinker used was produced in a separate factory that commenced production only in 1988.

Analysis: Notification No. 124/87-C.E. granted the lower rate of duty only where the cement was manufactured in a factory that commenced production during 01-01-1982 to 31-03-1986 and where such cement was manufactured out of clinker produced within the same factory or within another factory of the same manufacturer where clinker production had also commenced during that period. The expression "aforesaid period" in the notification was held to refer to the full period specified in the notification and not merely to the opening date. Since the clinker was produced in a plant that commenced production only in 1988, the condition for the concessional rate was not satisfied. The plea for a harmonious construction was rejected because the notification was found to be clear and unambiguous.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the concession under Notification No. 124/87-C.E.; duty was payable at the higher rate under Notification No. 35/88-C.E.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order denying the concessional duty benefit was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption notifications must be applied according to their plain language, and a concessional rate conditional on clinker production within a specified period cannot be extended where that condition is not met.

---