Literal construction of exemption notifications upheld for imported indigo powder, securing countervailing duty relief.

A taxing exemption notification must be construed literally, and the condition that the imported goods be used in the importer's own factory was treated as satisfied on the basis of binding precedent. On that construction, imported indigo powder 94 percent wettable qualified for exemption from countervailing duty under Entry 67 of Notification No. 04/2006-CE. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported Indigo powder 94 percent Wettable was entitled to exemption from countervailing duty under Entry 67 of Notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006.

Analysis: The notification had already been construed in the appellant's own case by the Supreme Court, which held that the expression "same factory" requires the imported goods to be used in the importer's own factory where manufacturing activity takes place. The exemption notification was required to be read literally, and once the goods fell within the notification, the benefit could not be denied on the ground that the importer was not itself manufacturing the goods in the same premises.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the exemption, and denial of the benefit of the notification was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing exemption notification must be construed literally, and where its condition requiring use in the importer's own factory is satisfied as interpreted in binding precedent, countervailing duty cannot be demanded contrary to that exemption.

---