Exemption notifications cannot add an implied actual-user requirement when the entry contains no express condition.

An exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. for chemicals used in the manufacture of Centchroman could not be denied merely because the importer was not an actual user or manufacturer. The relevant entry at Sr. No. 27 contained no express condition imposing such a requirement, and no implied user or manufacturing condition could be read into the notification. The analysis relied on earlier decisions interpreting the same notification and entry, confirming that exemption benefits must be administered according to the language used, not by adding unstated limitations. The impugned denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee's entitlement to the benefit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. dated 01.03.1997 could be denied in respect of goods covered by Sr. No. 27 of the Table annexed to the notification.

Analysis: The goods imported were covered by Sr. No. 27, which described "Chemicals, for use in the manufacture of Centchroman". The entry did not attach any express condition requiring the importer to be an actual user or manufacturer. In the absence of such a stipulation, no additional condition could be read into the exemption entry. The conclusion was supported by the ratio of the cited decisions dealing with the same notification and entry.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the ground that the importer was not an actual user or manufacturer. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption entry contains no express condition, no implied user or manufacturing requirement can be imported into it to deny the benefit.

---