TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 992
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the present case are that the appellant has a manufacturing unit situated at Village Nipora, Tehsil Kulgam, District Anantnag in the state of Jammu & Kashmir and they carried out substantial expansion of their manufacturing unit and applied for the benefits of exemption as available in Notification No. 01/2010-CE dated 06.02.2010 in terms of para 8(b)(i) thereof. The exemption was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 03.12.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) contending therein that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 01/2010-CE solely on the ground that as per the conditions of the notification, the investmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o submits that the very language of the notification that " have commenced commercial production from such expanded capacity on or after the 6th day of February, 2010" makes it amply clear that investment could be prior to 06.02.2010 as nobody can expand a plant by investing 25% more investment and get the date of production from his expanded capacity on the same day. 6. He also submitted that investments affected prior to 06.02.2010 which commences production after 06.02.2010 should be covered under its ambit and therefore the appellant has fulfilled the condition of the notification as per above said serial number as it is not disputed that the commercial production from the expanded capacity had commenced after 6th day of February, 2010....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to generation of additional regular employment by not less than 25% over and above the base employment unit. He further submits that if the legislature can prescribe such condition for serial no. (ii) of the notification then they could have prescribed the same condition for serial no. (i) also if they had intended to do so. 9. He also submits that the difference between the serial no. (i) & (ii) itself clearly proves that there is no such condition of making investment in plant and machinery on or after 6th day of February, 2010 in respect of serial no. (i) of para 8 of the notification whereas such a condition was there in respect of serial no. (ii) of para 8 of the notification. He further submits that this fact itself proves that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be included towards the expansion for the purpose of this notification and the claim of the appellant is not in consonance with the provisions of the notification. 12. Ld. DR relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company reported in 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has analyzed various decisions on the issue of interpretation of taxing statute and discussed in para 19 that " The well-settled principle is that when the words in a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. If the words in the statute are plain and u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation in future:" 14. If we analyze the provisions in serial no. 8(i) of the Notification we find that the it talks of undertaking substantial expansion by way of increase of not less than 25% in the value of fixed capital investment in plant and machinery and having commenced commercial production from such expanded capacity on or after 6th day of February, 2010. We also find that the language of the notification is very clear and the only requirement of the notification is that in order to avail the benefit of exemption is that the unit should have commenced commercial production from such expanded capacity on or after 06.02.2010 by investing 25% or more. 15. We also find that in the present case, the appellant has produced the certific....