ORDER
V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. The short point in this ap-peal is whether Exemption Notification No. 66/87-Cus., dated 01.03.1987 would be available to spare parts and accessories of Haemodialysers imported by the appellants being in the nature of life saving equipment.
2. Heard Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, Id. Consultant for appellants and Shri S. Sudarsan, Id. DR.
3. Ld. Consultant submits that the exemption contained in the said notification is for life saving equipments and parts and accessories thereof. The life saving equipments themselves have been listed in another notification No. 208/81-Cus., dated 22.09.1981 and this notification exempts such parts and accessories of such life saving equipments. Therefore, from these arrangement of two notifications, it is clear that the Legislative intent was to exempt all such spare parts and accessories of listed life saving equipments. He submits that there is no dispute that Haemodialysers have been so listed as life saving equipment in notification No. 208/81 (supra). The only dispute is that Revenue is taking erroneous restricted view by restricting the exemption only to those spare parts and accessories falling under chapter 90 or 98. He submits that this restricted view is not legally correct in view of the judgment in Consolidated Petrotech Industries Ltd. v. CCE as in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 81 (T); Oil India Ltd. v. CC as in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 449 (T) and Vulcan Engineers Ltd. v. CC as in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 636 (T).
4. Ld. DR on the other hand submits that there is no ambiguity in the wordings of the said exemption notification which provides that exemption is only available thereunder to spare parts and accessories of life saving equipments which fall under chapter 90 or 98 of the Customs Tariff. He submits that in view of the clear language of the said notification, the lower authorities have correctly denied the duty exemption on those goods which were not falling under these two chapters.
5. He further submits that it is well laid down law that there is no room for adjudging intendment in a notification and therefore there is no error in the order impugned and same needs to be upheld.
6. We have carefully considered these submissions and records of the case. The exemption notification No. 66/87, dated 01.03.1987 reads as follows:-
“Exemption to spare parts and accessories of life saving equipments. – In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts spare parts and accessories, falling under Chapter 90 or 98 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), of the life saving equipments listed in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, No. 208/81-Customs, dated the 22nd September, 1981, when imported into India from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule and from the whole of the additional duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act.”
7. A plain reading thereof shows that the Central Government has exempted spare parts and accessories falling under chapter 90 or 98 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. Therefore, there is a conscious restriction inbuilt into the said notification by the Legislative authorities restricting the exemption to only those spare parts and accessories which are falling under chapter 90 or 98 provided they are also spare parts and accessories of another life saving equipments listed in the notification No. 208/81, dated 22.09.1981. That Haemodialysers figure in Notification No. 208/81 (supra) is not disputed. Therefore, on a careful reading of this notification, we find that we cannot interpret this notification in any other manner than what the plain reading thereof suggests. Ld. Consultant has relied on the Judgment of Oil India Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal in the said judgment had considered the question of production of Essentiality Certificate from Secretary of Empowered Committee for claiming exemption No. 333/88-Cus. In the present notification, there is no such Essentiality Certificate or any other such post-importation Conditionality is required and hence the case-law cited stands distinguished on facts.
8. Ld. Consultant also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vulcan Engineers Ltd. (supra) wherein it is held as follows:-
“The Ld. Advocate had contended that the benefit of the notification has to be construed liberally. Now it is a well settled proposition of law that the terms of the notification, cannot be construed in such a way as to whittle down the terms of the notification itself. This notification being not applicable’ the question of giving a liberal interpretation does not arise. It is only in those cases where a substantial portion of the notification has been complied with and where there is a breach of some procedure, the Courts have held that in such cases, the benefit should not be withheld.”
Ld. Advocate submits that the way notification has been issued by the lower authorities amounts to whittling down from the exemption contained therein for spare parts and accessories for life saving equipments. Therefore, the ratio of this decision is claimed by Id. Consultant.
9. We find that this decision lays down that first there should be a substantial portion of the notification applicable to goods and only thereafter liberal construction of other procedures of the notification is to be adopted. In the present case, there is no procedural requirements prescribed by Notification No. 66/87. Secondly, the basic provision of the notification itself is not sat-isfied by those goods as they do not stand classifiable under chapter 90 or 98 of the Customs Tariff Act. Therefore, when the very basic mandatory provision spelt out in the notification by the Legislative Authority is violated, there is no question of any liberal interpretation .
10. Another decision of the Tribunal relied upon by Id. Consultant in the case of Consolidated Petrotech Industries Ltd. (supra) dealt with the notification No. 125/86-Cus., dated 17.02.1987 and therein it was held that the word ‘and’ is to be read as ‘or’. In the present notification, there is no need to read any word ‘and’ as ‘or’ because the notification itself provides that the exemption is available to spare parts and accessories falling either under chapter 90 “or” under chapter 98. Therefore, this case-law cited also stands distinguished.
11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal and that the exemptions claimed have been rightly denied by lower authorities. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.