Unconditional exemption for Di Lauroyl Peroxide was not lost because the product was supplied in solution form.

An unconditional exemption notification covering Di Lauroyl Peroxide could not be denied merely because the commodity was supplied in solution form. The Tribunal treated the goods as Di Lauroyl Peroxide 40% suspension in water and held that this form did not take the product outside the scope of Notification No. 142/94-Cus. dated 6-7-1994. The governing principle is that, where an exemption expressly covers a commodity and contains no qualifying restriction, the benefit remains available so long as the product continues to answer to that description.

---

---

Issues: Whether Di Lauroyl Peroxide in solution form was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 142/94-Cus. dated 6-7-1994.

Analysis: The notification specifically covered Di Lauroyl Peroxide. The lower appellate authority had denied the benefit on the view that the goods, being in solution form, did not qualify. The Tribunal found that the notification was unconditional and that the form of the product as a solution did not take it outside the scope of the exemption, since the impugned goods were identified as Di Lauroyl Peroxide 40% suspension in water.

Conclusion: Di Lauroyl Peroxide in solution form was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 142/94-Cus. dated 6-7-1994, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification is unconditional and expressly covers a commodity, the benefit cannot be denied merely because the commodity is present in solution form, so long as it remains the covered product.

---