M/S. UTTAM INDUSTRIES versus COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HARYANA

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 1113 · Decided: 21-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 2 S.C.R. 1113 
MIS. UTTAM INDUSTRIES 
v. 
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HARYANA 
(Civil Appeal Nos.3727-3728 of 2005) 
FEBRUARY 21, 2011 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ~] 
Central Excise Act, 1944: 
Notification no. 180188-CE dated 13. 5. 1988 as amended 
by the Notification no. 135194-CE dated 27.10. 1994 and 
Notification no. 1139 dated 28.02.1993 - Entitlement to 
exemption under - Held: Not available if assessee availed 
A 
B 
c 
the Modvat Credit of duty paid on the inputs - In the instant 0 
case, the assessee was availing modvat credit in respect of 
inputs used in the manufacture of the aluminum circles -
Consequently, assessee was not entitled to avail the benefit 
of the said Notification - Interpretation of statutes. 
Interpretation of statutes: Exemption notification - Held: 
E 
Has to be construed strictly and there has to be strict 
interpretation of the same by reading the same literally. 
· 
The appellants-assessee was engaged in the 
manufacture of aluminium circles and utensils. It claimed 
F 
benefit of exemption under Notification no.180/88-CE as 
amended by Notification no.135/94-CE. The department 
denied the benefit of Exemption Notification on the 
ground that the assessee did not fulfil conditions of the 
Notification. The appellate authority and the Tribunal held G 
that the assessee was availing MODVAT credit and, 
therefore, not entitled to the exemption Notification. The 
instant appeals were filed challenging the decision of the 
Tribunal. 
· 
1113 
H 
1114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The order-in-original, the orders passed by 
the appellate authority and as also by the Tribunal 
concurrently held that· admittedly the assessee-
B appellants were availing Modvat Credit in respect of 
inputs used in the manufacture of the aluminum circles. 
Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to avail the 
benefit of Notification granting exemption inasmuch as 
for availing such benefit under the said notification the 
C pre-condition was that the aluminum circles were to be 
cleared for intended use in the manufacture of utensils 
and no credit of duty paid on inputs has been taken in 
respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the 
aluminum circles. Such finding having become final, it 
was not open to the appellants to challenge the same. 
D The appellants failed to bring any evidence on record that 
the appellants were not availing of Modvat Credit on the 
same goods in respect of which they were also claiming 
benefit of exemption under Notification. [Para 8] [1117-C-
F] 
E 
1.2 It is by now a settled law that the exemption 
notification has to be construed strictly and there has to 
be strict interpretation of the same by reading the same 
literally. The finding recorded by the Tribunal and the two 
F authorities below were findings of fact and such findings 
in absence of evidence on record to the contrary is not 
subject to interference. In order to get benefit of such 
notification granting exemption the claimant has to show 
that he satisfies the eligibility criteria. Since the Tribunal 
G and the authorities below categorically held that the 
appellants did not satisfy the eligibility criteria on the 
basis of the evidence on record, therefore, the said 
exemption Notification is not applicable fo the case of the 
assessees. [Para 10] [1117-G; 1118-A-C] 
H 
Collector of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar vs. Ma/wa 
UTIAM INDUSTRIES v. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL 
1115 
EXCISE, HARYANA 
Industries Limited (2009) 12 SCC 735; Kartar Rolling Mills 
A 
vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi (2006) 4 SCC 
772 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
~ (2009) 12 sec 735 
(2006) 4 sec 112 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 10 
B 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3727-3728 of 2005. 
Form the Judgment & Order dated 10.03.2004 of the 
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi 
in Appeal No. E/1537-38/03-NBC. 
S. Sunil, Neeru Vaid for the Appellant. 
Harish Chandra, T.A. Khan, B. Krishna Prasad for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. The issue that falls 
E 
for consideration in these appeals is to the entitlement or 
otherwise of the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 
180/88 CE dated 13.05.1988 as amended by notification No. 
135/94-CE dated 27 .10.1994 whereunder exemption available 
was made conditional to the n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.