Exemption notification for refractory bricks could not be extended to refractory beams absent reliable technical proof

Refractory beams imported as component parts were considered distinct from refractory bricks for exemption purposes. The Tribunal held that Notification No. 242/76-Cus. had to be confined to the goods expressly covered by its language, and could not be extended by treating beams as bricks without reliable technical material. Because the invoice, supplier description and reference materials identified the goods as beams and did not show that beams fell within the notified category of refractory bricks of special shape or quality, the exemption was denied and the claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether recrystallined silicon carbide refractory beams imported as component parts could be treated as refractory bricks so as to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 242/76-Cus.

Analysis: The goods were described in the invoice and by the foreign supplier as beams, and no technical literature was produced to establish that a refractory beam was the same as a brick. The reference materials relied upon did not include beams within the category of bricks. The notification granted exemption to refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use as component parts of industrial furnaces, and the Tribunal applied the principle that the notification must be confined to the goods expressly covered by its language. Refractory bricks and refractory beams were treated as distinct articles, and the exemption could not be extended by equating one with the other.

Conclusion: The imported refractory beams were not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 242/76-Cus. The appeal failed and the assessee's claim was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification covering refractory bricks cannot be extended to refractory beams unless the latter are shown, on reliable technical material, to fall within the notified description.

---