Strict construction of exemption notifications excludes separately manufactured battery parts and rejects alternate plastic classification claims.

An exemption notification covering electric batteries commercially known as stationary batteries was construed strictly and held not to extend to separately manufactured parts of storage batteries supplied for use in battery manufacture. A remand for alleged breach of natural justice was rejected because personal hearing had been granted and no denial of hearing had been raised in the appeal below. The claim that the goods were classifiable as articles of plastic rather than under Item 31(3) of the Old Central Excise Tariff was also rejected, as the goods had consistently been treated under Item 31 and were specially made for storage batteries.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether parts of storage batteries were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 16/55-C.E. dated 18-4-1955; (ii) Whether the matter required remand on the ground of want of proper hearing and breach of natural justice; (iii) Whether the goods were classifiable as articles of plastic instead of under Item No. 31(3) of the Old Central Excise Tariff.

Issue (i): Whether parts of storage batteries were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 16/55-C.E. dated 18-4-1955.

Analysis: The exemption notification covered only electric batteries of the type commercially known as stationary batteries. It did not extend to parts of storage batteries manufactured and cleared separately, especially when the appellants were not manufacturing complete batteries but only components supplied to another unit for use in manufacture of batteries.

Conclusion: The parts of storage batteries were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 16/55-C.E. dated 18-4-1955, and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand on the ground of want of proper hearing and breach of natural justice.

Analysis: Personal hearing had been granted by the appellate authority, and no grievance regarding denial of hearing before the adjudicating authority had been raised in appeal before that authority. In these circumstances, the requirements of natural justice were treated as having been sufficiently met, and remand was not considered necessary.

Conclusion: The request for remand was rejected, and the point was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the goods were classifiable as articles of plastic instead of under Item No. 31(3) of the Old Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The goods had consistently been classified under Item No. 31 of the Old Central Excise Tariff, and no earlier claim had been made for classification as articles of plastic. The goods were specially made for storage batteries, and the plea for a different classification was not accepted.

Conclusion: The contention that the goods should be classified as articles of plastic was rejected, and the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety because the exemption was confined to complete stationary batteries, the plea for remand was untenable, and the alternative classification claim was not established.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be construed strictly, and where it is limited to a specified class of complete goods, separately manufactured parts do not qualify unless they are expressly covered.

---