Exemption notification interpretation: later tariff reclassification cannot defeat benefit where the covered goods remain substantively the same.

An exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. could not be denied merely because a later tariff amendment split Heading 85.28 into sub-headings 8528.10 and 8528.90. The notification predated the amendment, and the goods continued to fall within the same substantive product description; the tariff reference was only an identifier of the category covered. Since goods under 8528.90 were encompassed by the earlier 8528.00 entry, the exemption remained available notwithstanding the revised classification reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. could be denied on the ground that the goods fell under revised tariff sub-heading 8528.90 instead of the notification's reference to sub-heading 8528.00.

Analysis: The notification was issued on 1-3-1997, before the tariff amendment splitting Heading 85.28 into sub-headings 8528.10 and 8528.90. The goods described in the notification remained the same in substance, and the reference to the tariff heading served only to identify the product category. Since goods covered by sub-heading 8528.90 were also covered by the earlier sub-heading 8528.00, the exemption could not be refused merely because the notification mentioned the old heading and not the later sub-heading.

Conclusion: The exemption was wrongly denied and the appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the notification benefit, and the adverse order was set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification referring to an earlier tariff heading cannot be denied where a subsequent tariff amendment merely restructures the heading without altering the substantive description of the covered goods.

---