Exemption notifications must be read strictly; cumulative conditions apply, and exemption claims must be proved from primary records.

Exemption notifications must be applied according to their plain cumulative conditions: where Notification No. 103/76 required both a worker-limit and a power-consumption limit, failure to satisfy the power condition defeated the exemption, and a later amendment to Notification No. 88/77 could not rewrite the earlier text. For Notification No. 88/77, eligibility depended on the actual number of workers during the preceding 12 months, and the claimant had to prove compliance from primary records. A return filed with the Directorate of Industries was not a sufficient basis where the assessee's own registers were not produced, so the exemption issue required fresh adjudication on the correct factual record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of Notification No. 103/76 dated 16-3-1976 was available when the second condition relating to power consumption was not satisfied and the word "and" between the conditions was sought to be read as "or"; (ii) Whether denial of the benefit of Notification No. 88/77-C.E. dated 9-5-1977 could rest on the return filed with the Directorate of Industries and whether the matter required fresh adjudication on the basis of the appellant's own records.

Issue (i): Whether the benefit of Notification No. 103/76 dated 16-3-1976 was available when the second condition relating to power consumption was not satisfied and the word "and" between the conditions was sought to be read as "or".

Analysis: The notification imposed two cumulative conditions: the workers on any day during the preceding 12 months were not to exceed 49, and the total equivalent power used in manufacture was not to exceed 2 H.P. The second condition was admittedly not satisfied. The later amendment to Notification No. 88/77, substituting "or" for "and", could not be used to rewrite the plain language of Notification No. 103/76. A subsequent amendment may, at best, affect the later notification to which it relates, but it does not alter the wording of the earlier notification.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 103/76 was not available to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of the benefit of Notification No. 88/77-C.E. dated 9-5-1977 could rest on the return filed with the Directorate of Industries and whether the matter required fresh adjudication on the basis of the appellant's own records.

Analysis: For Notification No. 88/77, the relevant test was the number of workers on any day in the preceding 12 months. The earlier remand had indicated that the return filed with the Directorate of Industries was not the proper basis for determining actual worker strength. The assessee, however, had not produced the relevant registers and records despite opportunity. As the claimant to the exemption, the assessee bore the burden of establishing compliance with the notification conditions. The proper course was therefore to determine the issue from the appellant's maintained records and the actual worker strength for the relevant preceding period.

Conclusion: The matter relating to Notification No. 88/77 was remanded for de novo adjudication on the basis of the appellant's records.

Final Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 103/76 was denied, while the dispute concerning Notification No. 88/77 was sent back for fresh decision on the correct factual foundation.

Ratio Decidendi: Conditions in an exemption notification expressed in cumulative terms must both be satisfied, and entitlement to exemption must be proved by the claimant through relevant primary records; a subsequent amendment to a later notification does not alter the plain wording of an earlier notification.

---