Strict construction of exemption notifications bars refund for a levy not expressly covered by the notification.

A strict construction of exemption notifications required the levy to fall squarely within Notification No. 108/95-CE. The notification covered excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and additional excise duty under Section 3(1) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, but the duty on diesel/HSD was levied under Section 133 of the Finance Act, 1999 as amended by Section 120 of the Finance Bill, 2005. As that levy was not expressly covered, exemption and consequential refund were denied and the impugned order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption and consequential refund of additional duty of Rs. 2000 per KL on diesel/HSD under Notification No. 108/95-CE.

Analysis: The exemption notification covered the duty of excise leviable under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the additional duty of excise leviable under Section 3(1) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The duty claimed in the present case was levied under Section 133 of the Finance Act, 1999 as amended by Section 120 of the Finance Bill, 2005, and was therefore outside the scope of the notification. A duty not specifically exempted cannot be brought within the notification by implication.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the exemption or the consequential refund.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be construed strictly, and no exemption or refund can be granted for a levy not expressly covered by the notification.

---