Exemption notifications for scientific equipment do not automatically cover parts unless expressly stated.

An exemption notification limited to scientific and technical instruments, apparatus and equipment did not cover imported ceramic chip capacitors described as parts. The tribunal held that, because the notification did not expressly extend concessional treatment to parts, the goods fell outside its scope and the refund claim failed on the merits. A procedural objection concerning court-fee stamp was noted but did not affect the substantive result.

---

---

Issues: Whether ceramic chip capacitors imported as parts were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 211/76-Cus.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption only to scientific and technical instruments, apparatus and equipment. The imported goods were capacitors, which were only parts of such equipment. Since the exemption did not extend to parts, the claim for concessional duty failed. The procedural objection regarding court-fee stamp did not alter the substantive result.

Conclusion: The goods were not covered by the exemption notification and the claim for refund was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits because the imported goods did not satisfy the scope of the exemption notification.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification confined to scientific and technical instruments, apparatus and equipment does not extend to parts of such equipment unless expressly provided.

---