Ordinary commercial meaning of parts in exemption notifications governs air-conditioning components; relief cannot rest on unalleged complete-machine claims.

Exemption notifications using tariff language require "parts" to be understood in their ordinary commercial and tariff sense, read consistently with the Harmonised System of Nomenclature, rather than in a narrow engineering sense. On that approach, assemblies and related components such as valves, relays and thermostats may qualify as parts and accessories of air-conditioning machinery, so the exemption cannot be denied merely because the items are not strict sub-assemblies. A demand also cannot be sustained on the basis that the goods amounted to a complete split air-conditioning machine, where that allegation was not made in the notice. The result stated in the text is that the exemption applied and denial of benefit was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether parts and accessories of air-conditioning appliances and machinery cleared by the appellant were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 56/95-C.E.; and whether the demand could be sustained on the basis that the goods amounted to a complete split air-conditioning machine or on alleged collusion not set out in the notice.

Analysis: The exemption entry covered parts and accessories of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery, and its scope had to be read in the context of the tariff scheme and the Harmonised System of Nomenclature. A restrictive engineering definition of "part" was rejected because it would render several items specifically mentioned in the notification ineffective, including assemblies such as valves, relays, thermostats and related components. The relevant inquiry was the ordinary understanding of the item as a part of the machine, not whether it was a sub-assembly in the strict technical sense. The allegation that the appellant had manufactured a complete split air-conditioning machine also could not be sustained because the notice did not allege such manufacture, and the appellate authority could not travel beyond the notice.

Conclusion: The goods were eligible for the exemption and the denial of benefit was unsustainable. The allegation of manufacture of a complete split machine could not be relied upon. The findings were against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption notifications framed in tariff language, "parts" must be understood in their ordinary commercial and tariff sense, consistent with the Harmonised System, and not confined to a strict engineering definition; relief cannot be denied on allegations not contained in the show cause notice.

---