Exemption for complete instruments denied where a load cell was shown to be only a part, not an independent instrument.

An exemption notification confined to a complete instrument cannot be extended to a mere part of that instrument. A load cell was treated as part of a weigh-bridge, and no evidence showed that it was itself a complete instrument. A decision on classification under a different notification did not control the claim. On that basis, exemption under Notification No. 111/92 was not available, and the rejection of the claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether load cells were complete instruments eligible for exemption under Notification No. 111/92, or merely parts of an instrument so as to be outside the notification.

Analysis: The notification granted benefit only to a complete instrument and not to a part of an instrument. The Tribunal noted that earlier authority had treated a load cell as a part of a weigh-bridge. No evidence was produced to show that the load cell was itself a complete instrument. The cited decision on classification and auxiliary duty under a different notification did not govern the present claim.

Conclusion: The claim for exemption under Notification No. 111/92 was not sustainable and was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellant did not establish that the load cell was a complete instrument entitled to the claimed notification benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification is confined to a complete instrument, an article shown to be only a part of that instrument and unsupported by evidence of independent completeness cannot claim the exemption.

---