Exemption for parts of articles turns on the parent article's classification; new refund claims were left to the original authority.

An exemption notification for parts of articles was construed to apply where the parent article, for which the parts were intended, fell under the specified tariff headings; the imported parts themselves did not have to satisfy those headings. The later amending notification and its explanatory memorandum were treated as consistent with that reading, but the tariff classification of the parent article still had to be verified on the facts, so the matter was remanded for limited factual determination. Fresh refund claims relating to auxiliary duty and countervailing duty were not entertained at the appellate stage because they had not been shown to have been raised before the original authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Notification No. 35/79-Cus. dated 15-2-1979, the exemption for parts of articles applies only when the parts themselves fall under the specified tariff headings, or whether it is enough that the article for which the parts are intended falls under those headings; (ii) Whether the fresh claims for refund on account of auxiliary duty and countervailing duty could be entertained at the appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether, under Notification No. 35/79-Cus. dated 15-2-1979, the exemption for parts of articles applies only when the parts themselves fall under the specified tariff headings, or whether it is enough that the article for which the parts are intended falls under those headings.

Analysis: The exemption wording was read as referring to parts of an article falling under the listed headings, not as requiring the imported parts themselves to fall under those headings. The proper construction treated the article, not the part, as the commodity required to satisfy the listed headings. The subsequent amending notification and its explanatory memorandum were consistent with this understanding, but the matter still required verification of the tariff classification of the parent article on the facts.

Conclusion: The exemption could apply if the article for which the parts were meant fell under the listed headings. The matter was remanded for fresh determination on that factual aspect, in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether the fresh claims for refund on account of auxiliary duty and countervailing duty could be entertained at the appellate stage.

Analysis: These claims were not shown to have been raised before the Assistant Collector and were treated as new matters beyond the scope of the present appeal. The appellate forum therefore declined to examine them, leaving the appellant at liberty to pursue them before the Assistant Collector.

Conclusion: The new refund claims were not entertained.

Final Conclusion: The exemption notification was construed broadly in principle, but further factual verification was necessary and the matter was sent back for that limited purpose, while the additional refund claims were left to be pursued separately before the original authority.

Ratio Decidendi: In an exemption notification framed as applying to parts of an article falling under specified headings, the classification requirement attaches to the parent article and not necessarily to the imported part itself, and a later clarificatory amendment may reinforce that construction.

---