Strict construction of exemption notifications bars relief for blended yarn not answering the exempted description.

Exemption notifications are to be strictly construed, and a product must squarely answer the exempted description before relief is available. Although the blended spun yarn was classifiable under Item 18E because non-cellulosic fibre predominated by weight, that tariff classification did not expand the scope of the notification exempting only "polypropylene spun yarn." Explanation III to Item 18 governed classification where fibres were equal in weight and did not control the meaning of the exemption. The assessee also failed to prove that the blended yarn was known in the market as polypropylene spun yarn. The claim for exemption therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether blended spun yarn containing 52% polypropylene fibre and 48% viscose fibre was covered by the exemption for "polypropylene spun yarn" under Notification No. 332/77-CE.

Analysis: The notification exempted only polypropylene spun yarn falling under Item 18E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Although the assessee's product was classifiable under Item 18E because non-cellulosic fibre predominated in weight, the tariff classification did not by itself enlarge the scope of the exemption. Explanation III to Item 18 dealt with classification where fibres were equal in weight and did not govern the meaning of the exempted description in the notification. The assessee had to establish squarely that the product answered the description used in the exemption. Exemption notifications are to be strictly construed, and no extended meaning can be given to enlarge their scope. There was also no proof that the blended yarn was known in the market as polypropylene spun yarn.

Conclusion: The blended yarn was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 332/77-CE and the claim failed.

---