Strict construction of exemption notifications denied naphtha benefit for imported nonene classified as a distinct hydrocarbon.

Imported nonene did not qualify as naphtha for exemption or concessional customs duty under the relevant notifications. The notifications were construed strictly, so the benefit could extend only to goods clearly answering the description used. On the chemical evidence, nonene was treated as a distinct hydrocarbon and not the same commodity as naphtha, which is a petroleum distillate mixture of hydrocarbons. The conclusion was that the imported goods were not entitled to the claimed exemption or concessional rate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported commodity described as nonene was entitled to exemption or concessional duty as naphtha under the relevant customs notifications.

Analysis: The imported goods were consistently described in the bills of entry as nonene, sometimes as nonene as naphtha. The competing test reports and chemical opinions were weighed against the Dy. Chief Chemist's report, which treated nonene as a separate chemically defined hydrocarbon distinct from naphtha. The expression used in the exemption notifications had to be construed strictly, and the benefit could extend only to goods answering the description of naphtha. On the material available, nonene was found to be chemically and functionally different from naphtha, which is a mixture of hydrocarbons obtained from fractional distillation of petroleum, whereas nonene is a distinct organic compound with a specific boiling point and properties.

Conclusion: The goods imported by the assessee were not naphtha and were not eligible for the exemption or concessional rate under the notifications.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be strictly construed, and the benefit cannot be extended to a commodity that does not clearly answer the description used in the notification.

---