Conditional exemption for imported caprolactum cannot override the statute; trade notices and inconsistent practice do not create entitlement.

The concessional countervailing duty on imported caprolactum was conditional on the product being manufactured from benzene derived from raw naphtha on which duty had already been paid, and that condition was not satisfied. Trade notices issued by Collectorates could not override the exemption notification or control its plain terms because they had no statutory force. In taxing matters, there is no estoppel against the statute, so an incorrect executive clarification could not prevent application of the notification as written. A plea of discrimination based on different practice in other Collectorates was also rejected, and the demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to countervailing duty at the concessional rate on imported caprolactum on the strength of trade notices, and whether the exemption notification could be applied despite non-fulfilment of its conditions.

Analysis: The concession under the exemption notification was conditional, requiring caprolactum to be manufactured from benzene derived from raw naphtha on which duty had already been paid. The appellants did not satisfy that condition. The trade notices issued by various Collectorates could not override the statutory notification or control its plain terms, since trade notices have no statutory force. In taxing matters, there can be no estoppel against the statute, and an incorrect executive clarification cannot prevent the authorities from applying the law as it stood. The plea of discrimination based on different practice in other Collectorates also did not avail the appellants.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the concessional rate, and the demand was rightly upheld.

---