Strict construction of customs exemption notifications prevails, and later departmental clarification cannot override Supreme Court law.

Exemption notifications for customs duty must be construed strictly, and any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the revenue. Imported road construction machinery was treated as falling within the same class of goods considered by the Supreme Court in an earlier decision, where exemption was denied because the importer was not the contracting person or otherwise within the eligible category under the notification. A later TRU clarification could not override the law declared by the Supreme Court, since departmental circulars bind officers but cannot prevail over judicial interpretation. The claimed exemption was therefore not available, and reliance on the subsequent clarification was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from customs duty on import of road construction machinery under the exemption notification, and whether the subsequent TRU clarification could override the settled law declared by the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The imported machinery was held to fall within the same class of goods considered in the earlier Supreme Court decision, where exemption under the relevant notification was denied because the import was not by the contracting person or eligible entity contemplated by the notification. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and that any ambiguity in such notifications must be resolved in favour of the revenue. The later departmental clarification could not displace the law declared by the Supreme Court, because administrative circulars and clarifications are binding on departmental authorities but cannot prevail over judicial declarations of law. The earlier coordinate Bench view relying on the subsequent clarification was therefore not accepted as binding.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the claimed exemption, and the contention based on the later clarification was rejected.

---