1 ITEM No.1-A              Court No.14         SECTION  III (for judgment)                  

S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3727-3728 OF 2005

M/S.UTTAM INDUSTRIES                APPELLANT (s)

                             VERSUS

COMMNR.OF  CENTRAL  EXCISE  HARYANA  

Respondent (s)

Date : 21/02/2011  These  appeals were called on for judgment  today.           For Appellant (s)   Ms.Neeru Vaid, Adv.       

 For Respondent(s)  Mr.B.Krishna Prasad,Adv.                          

Hon'ble  Dr.  Justice  Mukundakam  Sharma  pronounced  the  

Judgment  of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr.

2 Justice Anil R. Dave.  

   Delay condoned.

    The appeals  are  dismissed in terms of the signed reportable  

judgment which is placed on the file.

         (KUSUM SYAL)            (RENU DIWAN)             SR.P.A             COURT MASTER

(Signed  

Reportable judgment is placed on the file.)

3 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  3727-3728 OF 2005

lM/s. Uttam Industries              …. Appellant

Versus

Commnr.  of  Central  Excise,  Haryana   

...

Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1    The issue that falls for consideration in these appeals is to the

4 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 non-availment of  

Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs.  

2. In order to record a definite finding on the aforesaid issue it would  

be  

necessary  

to set  out  

certain  

facts  

leading to  

filing  of  

the  

present appeals.   

3.   The appellants are engaged in the manufacture  of aluminum  

circles  and  utensils.   The  appellants  filed  classification  list  with  

effect  from 27.10.1994  whereby  the  appellants  claimed benefit  of  

Notification  No.  1/93  dated  28.02.1993  as  well  as  benefit  of  

Notification No. 135/94-CE dated 27.10.1994.  A show cause notice

5 was issued to the appellants on 18.01.1995 contending inter  alia  

that the benefit of Notification dated 27.10.1994 was not available to  

the appellants.  Subsequent to the same a demand of Rs. 5,18,652/-  

was  confirmed  by  way  of  denial  of  the  aforesaid  benefits  of  

Notifications  vide order passed on 01.11.1995.   

4.  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed in the order-in-

original  

dated  

01.11.1995, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner  

Central  Excise  (Appeals)  contending  inter  alia  that the  appellants  

fulfilled conditions of both the Notifications, namely, the one issued  

on 13.05.1988 as  amended by  notification  dated  27.10.1994 and  

also  of  the  Notification  dated  28.02.1993  and  since  both  the  

aforesaid  notifications  are  independent  it  cannot  be  said  that

6 benefits  under  both  the  notifications  cannot  be  availed  by  the  

appellants  and  that  rather  one  can  avail  both  the  benefits  

simultaneously.     

5.  The  Commissioner  Central  Excise,  who  was  the  appellate  

authority  held  that the  appellants  had not  fulfilled  the  stipulated  

conditions laid down in Notification dated 13.05.1988, as amended  

as  the  

appellants availed Modvat Credit and therefore they are not entitled  

to  the  benefit  of  the  said  Notification.   It  was  also  held  by  the  

appellate authority that the appellants did not place any material on  

record to show that they had fulfilled conditions of the Notifications  

for availing benefit of Modvat Credit.   

6.  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed on 31.03.2003 the

7 appellants filed an appeal before  the Customs, Excise and Service  

Tax Appellate Tribunal.  By Judgment and Order dated 10.03.2004  

the  aforesaid  appeal  filed  by  the  appellants  was  also  dismissed  

holding  inter  alia  that  in  this  case  it  is  not  disputed  by  the  

appellants that they were availing the credit in respect of the inputs  

used in the manufacture of the aluminum circles and therefore they  

are  not  

entitled to  

the  

benefit  of  

the  

Notification granting exemption. 7. Still aggrieved the appellants filed  

the present appeals on which we heard learned counsel appearing  

for the parties, who had taken us through various orders passed by  

the different authorities and also through other connected records.    

8.  On going through the records  it  is  clearly  established that the  

appellants are availing Modvat Credit  in respect  of inputs used in

8 the  manufacture  of  aluminum  circles.   The  order-in-original,  the  

orders passed by the appellate authority and as also by the Tribunal  

concurrently held that admittedly the appellants are availing such  

Modvat  Credit  in  respect  inputs  used  in  the  manufacture  of  the  

aluminum circles.  Consequently, the appellants are not entitled to  

avail the benefit of Notification granting exemption inasmuch as for  

availing  

such  

benefit  

under  the  

said  

notification the pre-condition is that the aluminum circles are 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.  All the aforesaid three  

authorities below having held concurrently in the same manner as  

stated  hereinabove.   Such finding has become final  and it  is  not

9 open to the appellants to challenge the same.  We also hold that 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.   

9.  That being the position we are not inclined to interfere with the  

aforesaid  

finding  of  

fact  

recorded  

by  the  

Tribunal  

and  the  

authorities below on the aforesaid issue.   

10.  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.  In this connection reference can  

be  made  to  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Collector  of  Customs  

(Preventive),  Amritsar  vs.  Malwa Industries Limited  reported at

10 (2009) 12 SCC 735 as also to the decision in  Kartar Rolling Mills  

vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported at (2006)  

4  SCC  772  wherein  also  it  was  held  by  this  Court  that  finding  

recorded by the Tribunal and the two authorities below are 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  and  the  

authorities below have categorically held that the appellant does not  

satisfy the eligibility criteria on the basis of the evidence on record,  

therefore,  we  hold  that  the  said  exemption  Notification  is  not  

applicable to the case of the appellants.  

11 11.  We do not find any merit in these appeals, therefore, we dismiss  

the same but leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  

…..........................................J                    [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

    .............................................J [  Anil  R.  Dave ]

New  Delhi, February  21, 2011.