Exemption notification interpretation: eligibility turns on the notification's own description and supporting evidence, not tariff classification alone.

An exemption notification with its own description of eligible goods must be applied on its plain terms, not solely by tariff classification. The Tribunal accepted evidence, including technical certificates and records, showing that the lubricating oils and greases were blended or compounded goods ordinarily used as lubricants and therefore fell within Notification No. 120/84-C.E. The Revenue's denial based only on classification under heading 34.03 was rejected as inconsistent with the notification language and unsupported by the record. The consequential duty demand and equal penalty were held not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's lubricating oils and greases manufactured under sub-heading 3403.00 were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 120/84-C.E. dated 11.05.1984, and whether the consequential duty demand and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The exemption notification was held to be framed in its own language, without reference to any tariff heading or sub-heading, and to require only that the goods be blended or compounded lubricating oils and greases obtained by straight blending of mineral oils or by blending or compounding of mineral oils with other ingredients. The earlier remand direction had required the factual question of eligibility to be answered on the basis of evidence. The appellant produced chartered engineer's certificate and supporting certificates and records to show that the goods satisfied the description in the notification and were ordinarily used as lubricants. The lower authorities' approach of denying exemption only because the goods were classified under heading 34.03 was held to be inconsistent with the earlier Tribunal ruling and unsupported by the record. The evidence adduced by the appellant was accepted, and the Revenue did not rebut it.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 120/84-C.E. dated 11.05.1984, and the consequential duty demand and equal penalty were not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification contains its own description of eligible goods, entitlement must be decided on the notification's plain terms and the evidence showing that the goods satisfy that description, and not merely by the tariff classification assigned to the goods.

---