ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has overruled the decision of the Assistant Commissioner and held that the benefit of duty free clearances in terms of Rule 191BB was not available to the appellant in respect of 669.7 kgs. of polyester staple fibre for the reason that it did not possess, as specified in Notification 3/93 an advance licence for the goods.
2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented and sought decision on merits. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.
3. The appellant does not deny that it did not hold an advance licence but contends that since it was named in the advance licence and DEEC Book issued to Kotak & Co. as the supporting manufacturer, the benefit of the exemption should be available to it. The departmental representative contends that the notification has to be read strictly, and by doing so, there is no provision to say that a supporting manufacturer does not have any legal status as such and he is not entitled to facilities specified in the notification.
4. We have to agree with this contention. It may be true that ultimately the yarn manufactured by the appellant out of fibre received would have been supplied to Kotak & Co. for export by it in fulfilment of the export obligation. There is however no provision in the notification exempting goods supplied to a person other than the ultimate exporter who holds an advance licence. This may be an unintended lacuna in that notification. We have however to construe the notification strictly. By doing so, it is clear that the appellant could not have received the yarn free of duty.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.