M/S. UTTAM INDUSTRIESversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HARYANA

                    [2011] 2 S.C.R. 1113

                 MIS. UTTAM INDUSTRIES                            A
                              v.
      COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HARYANA
         (Civil Appeal Nos.3727-3728 of 2005)
                   FEBRUARY 21, 2011
                                                                  B
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                  ANIL R. DAVE, JJ~]

    Central Excise Act, 1944:
                                                                  c
     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
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           relied on             Para 10      B

      (2006) 4 sec 112            relied on             Para 10

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3727-3728 of 2005.
                                                                     c
    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.
                                                                     D
    Harish Chandra, T.A. Khan, B. Krishna Prasad for the
Respondent.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     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 non-availment of Modvat Credit           F
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.                                       G

      3. The- appellants are engaged in the manufacture of
~luminum 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
                                                                     H
    1116    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A benefit of Notification No. 135/94-CE dated 27.10.1994. A
  show cause notice 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
B 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)
C 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 benefits
D 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
E 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
F 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 appellants filed an appeal before the Customs,
  Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. By Judgment and
G 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
H benefit of the Notification granting exemption.
    UTTAM INDUSTRIES v. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL     1117
   EXCISE, HARYANA [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

     7. Still aggrieved the appellants filed the present appeals    A
 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 8
 that the appellants are availing Modvat Credit in respect of
 inputs used in 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
 appellan~ are availing such Modvat Credit in respect inputs C
 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 D
 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 h~s become final and it is not open to the 'appellants to
 challenge 'the same. We also hold that the appellants failed to E
 bring any -evidence on record that the appellants were not ·
 availing of Mopvat Credit on the same goods in respect of
 which they wer~ also claiming benefit of exemption under
 Notification.
                                                                      F
       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 G ·
   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 (2009) 12 sec 735 as also to
. the decision in Kartar Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of H
    1118    SUPREME COURT R{:PORTS                 (2011) 2 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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, therefoje. we hold that the said exemption
c Notification is not applicable to the case of the appellants.
        11. We do not find any merit in these appeals, therefore,
   we dismiss the same but leaving the parties to bear their own
   costs.

    D.G.                                       Appeals dismissed.