Strict construction of exemption notifications bars extension to later cesses and duties not expressly covered.

An exemption notification issued under section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act and specific earlier duty enactments was construed strictly by its text and source of power. It did not extend to National Calamity Contingent Duty, education cess, or secondary and higher education cess created under later Finance Acts, because a notification cannot be enlarged to cover levies not expressly mentioned or not in existence when issued. Earlier coordinate bench rulings contrary to this view were treated as per incuriam in light of binding three-judge bench authority. The exemption was held inapplicable to those cesses and duties, and the High Court view was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an exemption notification granting relief from excise duty and specified additional duties could be extended to National Calamity Contingent Duty, education cess, and secondary and higher education cess imposed under later Finance Acts.

Analysis: The exemption notification was issued with reference to section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the identified additional duties under the Acts of 1957 and 1978. It did not refer to National Calamity Contingent Duty under the Finance Act, 2001, and the education cess and secondary and higher education cess under the Finance Acts of 2004 and 2007 were introduced later. The governing principle is that an exemption notification must be construed according to its language and source of power, and it cannot be extended to duties not specifically covered by it or to levies not in existence when the notification was issued. The earlier coordinate bench decisions relied upon by the assessee were held to be per incuriam in view of the binding three-judge bench rulings that an exemption confined to excise duty under the specified enactments does not automatically extend to other duties or cesses created by separate legislation.

Conclusion: The exemption did not cover NCCD, education cess, or secondary and higher education cess, and the challenge to the High Court's view failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed and the High Court's judgment was upheld, leaving the revenue's demand intact.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification limited to specified excise enactments cannot be enlarged to include later-imposed cesses or duties under separate Finance Acts unless the notification expressly covers them.

---