Strict construction of exemption notifications: lead scrap fell within clause (b) and qualified for excise duty refund.

A taxing exemption notification must be construed strictly on its plain language, with no intendment or implied conditions. Clauses (a) and (b) of Notification No. 33/81 were distinct and disjunctive, so the duty-paid requirement in clause (a) could not be read into clause (b) through the words "the said". On that construction, imported lead scrap fell within clause (b) and qualified for exemption from excise duty, with refund of duty paid under protest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the lead scrap imported by the assessee fell within clause (b) of Notification No. 33/81 dated 1 March 1981 so as to qualify for exemption from excise duty and refund of duty paid under protest.

Analysis: The notification exempted waste and scrap of copper, zinc, aluminium and lead from excise duty. Clause (a) applied where such waste and scrap were manufactured from specified goods on which excise duty or, as the case may be, additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 had already been paid. Clause (b) dealt with waste and scrap arising from products falling under other item numbers of the First Schedule, and no requirement of prior payment of duty was inserted there. The Court held that clauses (a) and (b) were distinct and disjunctive, and the words "the said" in clause (b) could not be used to import the duty-paid condition from clause (a). In a taxing exemption, the Court further applied the rule that there is no scope for intendment and the plain words of the notification must govern.

Conclusion: The assessee's imported lead scrap was covered by clause (b) of the notification and was entitled to exemption and refund of excise duty paid.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification in a taxing statute must be construed strictly according to its plain language, and where two clauses are expressed disjunctively, a condition found in one clause cannot be read into the other by implication.

---