Strict construction of customs exemption notifications bars extension of personal-use re-import benefit to companies.

Notification No. 174/66-Cus. on re-import of repaired goods was construed strictly, and its express conditions limiting the benefit to personal use, non-sale, and ownership remaining within the exporter's family were treated as material restrictions. On that reading, the exemption was confined to individuals and could not be extended to a company by analogy with decisions construing a different notification lacking those limitations. The earlier authorities relied on by the assessee were therefore held inapplicable, and the exemption claim failed, restoring the revenue-favourable assessment position.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 174/66-Cus. on re-import of repaired goods, and whether the notification could be applied to a company in the same manner as a notification lacking the restrictive conditions relied upon by the assessee.

Analysis: The notification governing the re-imported goods contained specific conditions that the goods be for personal use, not for sale, and that ownership should not have changed except within the exporter's family. These conditions were treated as material restrictions indicating that the exemption was intended for individuals and not for corporate entities. The earlier authorities relied upon by the respondent interpreted a different notification that did not contain these restrictive clauses, so their ratio was held inapplicable. Exemption notifications were required to be strictly construed, and any ambiguity had to operate against the claimant of exemption.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 174/66-Cus., and the revenue's appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order granting the exemption was set aside, and the assessment position favourable to Revenue was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be strictly construed, and where its express conditions confine the benefit to personal use and family ownership, the exemption cannot be extended to a company by analogy with a different notification lacking those restrictions.

---