2000 (11) TMI 140 - SUPREME COURT

Interpretation of a Notification issued by the Central Government under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, exempting goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944

Held that:- In our view the Tribunal rightly preferred the view taken in the case of Devidayal [1981 (1) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY]. The factual hurdles like a common generator may be in use by different units in the factory complex as indicated in the case of Golden Press (1985 (1) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD) can well be worked out by devising proper method while apportioning the value of different plants proportionately. In no way such hurdle, as posed, would change the meaning of a Notification which on the face of it and by the plain language used therein has unambiguous and clear meaning.

Such Notifications by which exemption or other benefits are provided by the Government in exercise of its statutory power, normally have some purpose and policy decision behind it. Such benefits are meant to be provided to the investors and manufacturers. Therefore, such purpose is not to be defeated nor those who may be entitled for it are to be deprived by interpreting the notification which may give it some meaning other than what is clearly and plainly flowing from it.In view of the discussion held above, we find no merit in the appeals and they are hereby dismissed.