Exemption for rubber products denied where cushion repair compound fell within the tyre retreading exclusion under the notification.

Cushion repair compound used for resoling or retreading tyres was not covered by the exemption notification for rubber products under Item 16-A(2). The notification had to be read on its own language: although its main part granted exemption to specified rubber products, the bracketed exclusion withdrew that benefit from products made wholly or partly of rubber and used for tyre resoling or retreading, including cushion compound and tread gum. The inclusive wording did not narrow that exclusion, and later circulars, subsequent amendments, or an earlier revisional order under a different notification could not alter the plain meaning. Captive consumption did not assist the assessee on the material before the court.

---

---

Issues: Whether cushion repair compound used by the assessee was exempt from excise duty under the relevant exemption notification governing rubber products falling under Item 16-A(2).

Analysis: The notification had to be construed on its own language. Its main part granted exemption to specified rubber products, while the bracketed exclusion withdrew exemption from products made wholly or partly of rubber and used for resoling or retreading of tyres, including the named products such as cushion compound and tread gum. The inclusive wording did not cut down the exclusion; rather, it reinforced that the named products were outside the exemption. Later circulars, subsequent amendments, and an earlier revisional order on a different notification could not control the plain meaning of the notification under consideration. The issue of captive consumption did not assist the assessee in the absence of a relevant challenge by the Department.

Conclusion: Cushion repair compound was not exempt and remained liable to excise duty; the appeal therefore failed on the substantive exemption issue.

---