Exemption notification construed by commodity name: incorrect heading reference could not defeat concessional duty for ethyl glycol.

Ethyl glycol was held eligible for concessional customs duty under Notification No. 39/90-Cus. even though the notification mentioned Heading 29.05, while the goods were classified under Heading 29.09. The notification specifically named ethyl glycol, and the heading reference was treated as an apparent drafting error because the entry would otherwise be rendered redundant. The later amendment substituting Chapter 29 for Heading 29.05 supported that view and confirmed the earlier mistake. The exemption could not be denied on the basis of the incorrect heading reference, and the benefit of the notification was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether ethyl glycol was entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 39/90-Cus. notwithstanding the mention of Heading 29.05 in the notification, when the goods were classified under Heading 29.09.

Analysis: Ethyl glycol was not disputed to be classifiable under Heading 29.09, while the exemption notification specifically named ethyl glycol in its entry though it referred to Heading 29.05. The entry would become meaningless if the Revenue's interpretation were accepted. The later amendment by Notification No. 144/91-Cus., replacing Heading 29.05 with Chapter 29, indicated that the earlier heading reference was an error subsequently corrected.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 39/90-Cus. could not be denied merely because of the incorrect heading reference, and the exemption was allowable to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the denial of the notification benefit was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification specifically identifies a commodity by name, a mistaken heading reference that is shown to be an error cannot defeat the substantive benefit of the notification if the entry would otherwise be rendered redundant.

---