Refund under exemption notification confined to duty paid on specified goods, not a standalone lump-sum linked to construction cost.

A refund notification for cement and steel used in tsunami-affected house construction had to be read as a whole: clause 5 confined the benefit to duties actually paid on the specified goods used in the eligible houses, while clause 3(d)'s reference to 6% of construction cost with a monetary cap did not create a standalone lump-sum entitlement. The operative effect was that refund remained limited to the duty suffered on the materials, and the broader claim based on construction cost was rejected. The principle stated is that an exemption notification with a refund mechanism cannot be expanded beyond its text to grant relief unrelated to the duty paid on the notified goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a proper construction of Notification No. 32/2005-CE dated 17.08.2005, the refund payable for cement and steel used in construction of tsunami-affected houses was confined to the actual duty paid on such goods or extended to 6% of the cost of construction per house subject to the prescribed monetary cap.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption to cement and steel used in construction of houses in tsunami-affected areas and prescribed a refund mechanism in clause 3. Clause 3(d) fixed the refund rate as 6% of the cost of construction subject to a ceiling of Rs. 9,000 per house, but clause 5 made clear that the exemption was only in respect of duties paid on the cement and steel actually used in the specified houses. Reading the notification as a whole, the refund mechanism was intended to reimburse the duty paid on the specified goods, and not to create an independent entitlement to a lump sum refund unrelated to the duty suffered on the materials.

Conclusion: The refund was confined to the duty paid on cement and steel actually used in the construction of the eligible houses, and the broader claim based on 6% of the construction cost was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification providing a refund mechanism must be construed as a whole, and where the text limits the benefit to duty paid on specified goods actually used for the notified purpose, the refund cannot be expanded into a standalone lump sum unrelated to that duty.

---