Strict construction of exemption notification denies electroplating machine benefit where no new commodity is produced.

An electroplating machine classifiable under Chapter Heading 85.43 was held ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 51/93-C.E. because the notification applied only to machinery used for producing a commodity and had to be strictly construed. The machine was used for electroplating services, including on old and rusted items, but electroplating alone does not amount to manufacture or create a new commodity. On that basis, the machine was not treated as machinery for production of a commodity, the concessional benefit was denied, and the lower authority's view was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an electroplating machine classifiable under Chapter Heading 85.43 was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 51/93-C.E. as machinery used for the production of a commodity.

Analysis: The exemption was confined to machinery used for producing a commodity, and the relevant entry had to be construed strictly. The machine in question was used for electroplating and was capable of providing electroplating services independently, including on old and rusted items. Mere electroplating does not amount to manufacture or bring into existence a new commodity, and therefore an electroplating machine cannot be regarded as machinery for producing a commodity within the meaning of the notification.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available and the denial of concessional treatment was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the lower authority's view that the electroplating machine did not qualify for exemption was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification granting benefit to machinery used for producing a commodity must be strictly construed, and a machine exclusively used for electroplating does not qualify as machinery for production of a commodity.

---