Export notification conditions must be read as written; penalty cannot rest on an implied proof-of-export requirement.

An exemption or export notification must be construed according to its express terms, and a requirement cannot be read into it unless the notification actually contains it. Where the goods were exported within the stipulated six-month period, the substantive condition of the notification was satisfied, and failure to submit proof of export within that period did not itself amount to a breach. On that construction, the penalty was unsustainable because it rested on a misinterpretation of the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed for failure to submit proof of export within six months under Condition II of Notification No. 42/2001 dated 26-6-2001, when the goods had in fact been exported within the stipulated period.

Analysis: The condition in the notification required the manufacturer to export the goods within six months from the date of clearance from the factory. It did not prescribe submission of proof of export to the competent authority within six months as a condition for compliance. Since the goods were exported within the stipulated period, the condition precedent for export was satisfied and the appellant had not violated the notification. The penalty was imposed on a misinterpretation of the notification.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A condition in an exemption or export notification must be construed according to its express terms, and penalty cannot be imposed by reading into it a requirement that the notification does not contain.

---