Plain language of exemption notification upheld as waste of acrylic staple fibre remained eligible and misdeclaration allegation failed.

An exemption notification in a taxing statute must be applied according to its plain language, and the benefit cannot be denied by expanding a disqualifying condition beyond its clear terms. On the facts stated, the respondents did not undertake polymerisation of organic polymers, so they remained within the scope of Notification No. 85/95-C.E. and were entitled to the concessional duty rate. The separate allegation of fraudulent misdeclaration also failed because the classification list accurately disclosed the absence of polymerisation, and that factual finding was not disputed in the appeal memorandum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 85/95-C.E. for waste of acrylic staple fibre, and whether the allegation of fraudulent misdeclaration survived.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the notification had to be construed according to its clear language. The respondents did not carry out polymerisation of organic polymers, which was the disqualifying condition relied upon by the Revenue. On that basis, they remained within the scope of the exemption notification and were entitled to the concessional rate of duty. The separate allegation of misdeclaration was also not sustained, as the classification list correctly disclosed that the respondents were not polymerising organic polymers, and the Revenue did not dispute that finding in the appeal memorandum. The earlier decision in the respondents' own case on the same product was followed, and no ground was found to grant stay or keep the matter pending.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 85/95-C.E. was held applicable to the respondents, and the charge of misdeclaration was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification in a taxing statute must be given effect according to its plain language, and where the stated disqualifying process is not undertaken, the assessee cannot be excluded from the benefit merely on intended or expanded interpretation.

---