Strict construction of refund notifications bars relief when the duty levy falls outside the specified enactments.

Refund under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. was confined to duties of excise leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978. The duty on tea arose instead from a surcharge introduced by the Finance Act, 2003, and was not levied under those specified enactments. As the claim fell outside the express scope of the notification, strict construction barred relief and the refund was held inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. was maintainable when the duty on tea was levied as an additional duty of excise by surcharge and not under the specified enactments.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption only to goods cleared from the specified North Eastern States from so much of the duty of excise leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978. The duty paid on tea was not levied under either of those Acts, but arose from the surcharge introduced by the Finance Act, 2003. Since the claim did not fall within the express terms of the notification, the refund could not be granted.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not admissible and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: Relief was denied because the exemption notification did not extend to the duty levy in question.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption or refund notification must be applied strictly according to its express scope, and relief is unavailable where the duty in question is not levied under the statutes specifically covered by the notification.

---