Exemption notification scope prevails over tariff classification when the notification otherwise covers the imported goods.

Imported gauges were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, because exemption turns on the plain language of the tariff entry and the notification. The Tribunal applied the Bombay High Court principle that classification under a different heading does not by itself defeat exemption if the notification otherwise covers the goods. On that basis, the gauges fell within the notification and the alternative exemption claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported gauges were entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 notwithstanding their classification under Heading 90.28(4) read with 90.16(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the ratio of the cited Bombay High Court decision, which held that the scope of an exemption notification must be determined on the plain language of the tariff entry and the notification. On that approach, the availability of exemption is not defeated merely because the goods are classifiable under a different heading, where the notification otherwise covers the imported goods. Applying that principle to the present imports, the Tribunal found that the gauges qualified for the claimed exemption.

Conclusion: The goods imported by the assessee were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, and the alternative claim for exemption was allowed.

---