Strict construction of exemption notifications bars Coke Breeze from Metallurgical Coke benefit under customs exemption rules.

Coke Breeze imported under Heading 2704 00 was not eligible for exemption as Metallurgical Coke under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus because exemption notifications must be construed strictly by their plain wording. The Tribunal held that Coke Breeze and Metallurgical Coke are commercially distinct products with different characteristics and uses, and the notification extended benefit only to Metallurgical Coke. Eligibility could not be expanded by reference to intended use, technical literature, or circulars. The exemption claim therefore failed, and the customs demand confirmations were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether Coke Breeze imported under Heading 2704 00 was entitled to exemption as Metallurgical Coke under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012.

Analysis: The classification of the goods was not in dispute, but the exemption claim turned on whether Coke Breeze could be treated as Metallurgical Coke for the purpose of the notification. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the same subject and accepted that Coke Breeze and Metallurgical Coke are commercially distinct products with different characteristics and uses. It held that exemption notifications must be construed strictly, that nothing can be added to the text of the notification, and that eligibility must be shown from the plain words used in the exemption itself. Since the notification granted exemption only to Metallurgical Coke and did not extend it to Coke Breeze, the benefit could not be enlarged by reference to use, technical literature, or circulars.

Conclusion: Coke Breeze was not held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed and the customs demand confirmations were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be interpreted strictly according to its plain language, and a product not expressly covered by the notification cannot be brought within it on the basis of use or functional similarity.

---